Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Airports Inquiries

Mr. Cartwright: asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received concerning the report of the inspector on the airports inquiries 1981–83; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): I wish, first, to convey the apologies to the House of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his absence on export business in India.
The reply to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) is that between 10 December 1984, when the inspector's report was published, and 1 April 1985, my right hon. Friend received 1,164 written representations on this subject.

Mr. Cartwright: Does the Minister accept that airports policy has a major impact on wider issues of economic development? Will he therefore try to ensure that when the Secretary of State is making his decision, full account is taken of the need to encourage economic investment in parts of Britain other than south-east England?

Mr. Spicer: My right hon. Friend will take into account all the evidence that was put to, and the recommendations of, the inspector in respect of the regional dimension which the hon. Gentleman mentions.

Mr. Soames: Will my hon. Friend assure the blouse that the main consideration that will be given when arriving at a conclusion will be that of the national interest?

Mr. Spicer: Certainly, Sir.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Minister convey to his right hon. Friend the message that export business is no valid excuse for failing to be at the service of the House?

Mr. Spicer: I shall convey the right hon. Gentleman's view to my right hon. Friend. I must, however, remind hon. Members that India imports about £800 million worth of goods from this country and that it is the duty of a Minister of the Crown to assist that business.

Mr. McCrindle: Luton airport was outside the terms of reference of the inspector's inquiry, but will my hon. Friend confirm, nevertheless, that it will be in order for those who wish to see the expansion of that airport, perhaps rather than the contemplated expansion of Stansted, to make representations accordingly, and have any been so made?

Mr. Spicer: Luton is an integral part of the London airport system and was mentioned in the inspector's report. Any development there would be subject to the appropriate planning procedures.

Mr. Haselhurst: Will my right hon. Friend's decisions on the applications that are at the heart of the inspector's report be subject to the approval of the House?

Mr. Spicer: No, Sir. The Secretary of State has already said that there will be a debate on airports matters, including the matters to which my hon. Friend refers, subsequent to the announcement of the decision by him and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What proposals does the Minister have for the further development and expansion of Carlisle airport?

Mr. Spicer: Carlisle airport is a good airport, which the hon. Gentleman espouses rigorously and vigorously, and which I visited recently. It has certain problems, notably to do with Customs and Excise, into which we are currently looking.

Mr. Adley: Did my hon. Friend say that the House would not be further consulted by his Department about the development of Stansted? If so, is he aware that some of us will take no notice of that but will regard it as nothing less than our duty, in the national interest, to do what we believe to be right, when his Department has made up its mind, on an issue that affects the whole nation?

Mr. Spicer: The statutory planning procedure now requires the two Departments, of the Secretaries of State for Transport and of the Environment, to produce their decisions to the House.

Bus Services

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from Scotland in the last three months concerning the likely effects of the new policy on bus transport; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I have received representations from several organisations and members of the public in Scotland.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Minister not understand that there is virtually unanimous opposition in Scotland to the terms of the Bill, not least among the old and the disabled, whose interests will be jeopardised severely by the privatisation of bus services? Does the Minister understand also that the Government have no mandate for the Bill and that there is opposition not only in rural areas in Scotland but elsewhere throughout the United Kingdom?

Mr. Mitchell: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is correct in referring to widespread opposition to our proposals. That opposition is based largely upon misinformation, much of which has been distributed widely by the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary colleagues.

Mr. Viggers: Is my hon. Friend aware that the manager of the Gosport depot of the National Bus Company, Mr. McQuade—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question relates to Scotland.

Mr. Viggers: Mr. McQuade came from Scotland, Mr. Speaker. Is my hon. Friend aware that Mr. McQuade has made representations about guarantees for the ex-employee pensioners of the NBC after privatisation? Is he yet in a position to make a statement on this issue?

Mr. Mitchell: Like Mr. McQuade's family, my own and many others spread from Scotland south of the border. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to pensions, which is an area of some unease. The company will have to make proposals to the Government. We accept fully that the position of the staff has to be protected.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister realise that transport was municipalised in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom after private ownership many years ago, which

utterly failed the people? That is why it was municipalised and, ultimately, nationalised. That was done in the interests of the people.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman portrays the Labour party's ongoing approach, which is to look back instead of looking to the future. It is not prepared to face the challenges of the present and to recognise that past systems have failed and that the industry has been in a state of chronic decline. That decline is well demonstrated in Scotland by the fact that in the past 12 years no less than 43 per cent. of jobs in the Scottish NBC have been cut. If the hon. Gentleman wants to continue to defend a system which is declining as rapidly as that, he will not find much support.

Bus Safety

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received concerning the safety of the public on transport following deregulation of buses.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Since the publication of the Transport Bill at the end of January we have received about 800 letters and a number of petitions about various aspects of the policy, including the implications for safety.

Mr. Parry: Is the Minister aware of the great concern of the general public and of workers in the industry over the great dangers that will result from poor maintenance following the privatisation of the buses? Do the Government intend to employ more staff to keep tabs on cowboy operators, who will flourish when the Bill is enacted?

Mrs. Chalker: There is always concern about safety standards. It is because of that concern that, quite apart from the Bill, we have been reviewing numbers and priorities for both vehicle and traffic examiners. I shall be having meetings about the issue later this week. The Government are already committed to making additional resources available for vehicle and traffic examination. Following deregulation, the quality of long-distance services has improved immeasurably. There is no reason why services cannot improve, irrespective of the operator, provided that they are supervised properly, and that will be done.

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the safety standards of many municipal and public services leave much to be desired and that the steps that are being taken by herself and her ministerial colleagues will ensure that the safety standards of private operators in future will be an improvement on those which now exist in the public sector?

Mrs. Chalker: The comments of the chairman of the West Midlands traffic commissioners and others, which take into account the experience of private operators as against public and passenger transport executive operators, suggest that the private operator is generally no worse and no better than other operators. There is variability. In 1983, pass rates for private operators were about the same as the average pass rate but well above the rates of the PTEs and, at that time, of London Transport. I have no doubt that proper vehicle examinations annually


and spot checks will ensure that safety can be as good as at present, if not better, and we shall ensure that it is improved.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the Minister agree that the present regulations will not be able to cope adequately with both the large number of companies and the small companies? Does she agree that if the regulations are inadequate the spot checks will be completely useless, no matter how many more people are put into the inspectorate?

Mrs. Chalker: I am aware of some concern about the regulations. I would review those regulations regularly in any case. Clause 31 of the Transport Bill, which is being considered in Standing Committee A, provides for the extension of the public service vehicles prohibition powers to those vehicles which are not for hire or reward. There are nearly 10,000 such vehicles. We are already doing what the hon. Gentleman asks.

Mr. Evans: Surely the Minister must acknowledge that there is growing concern about the fact that the deregulation of buses will result in a vast reduction in expensive maintenance services, especially in inner-city areas, and will be liable to cause breakdowns and accidents in busy city streets.

Mrs. Chalker: Just because the hon. Gentleman keeps on repeating his concern and keeps on whipping up concern among people who do not know the facts, he cannot expect—any more than I do—dead silence on the issue from the press. There is a need for improvements in maintenance standards, but that need is in no way restricted to private operators. We are in the business to ensure that the maintenance standards of all operators are improved.

Mr. Adley: Why are the safety requirements on carriage for hire and reward that are laid by the House on British Rail so much more stringent than those laid on coach operators?

Mrs. Chalker: In the past, more people—sadly, not as many today—chose to travel by British Rail, and I am sure that that aspect was considered in framing the original legislation. I have made it clear to the House this afternoon that the safety standards imposed on buses should not be lower than those imposed on British Rail. That is exactly what we are working for.

Mr. Snape: Did the Minister see the party political broadcast last week on behalf of the Conservative party? Does she agree that the bus shown in that broadcast does not operate in Hereford, despite the commentary? Is it a fact that one of the two passengers concerned is an active member of the Conservative party? Is it true that the other passenger admitted afterwards that she had never used a bus? Is it not disgraceful that the Conservative party should seek to mislead the country in this way? Bearing in mind this type of appalling conduct, how on earth is the House supposed to accept the hon. Lady's views on future safety standards?

Mrs. Chalker: I have sufficient confidence in my party not to have to be persuaded by party political broadcasts on its behalf. I did not watch the broadcast, but I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman did so. Conservatives and members of every other party, including many hon. Members, regularly travel by bus. There are others who

do not travel by bus regularly, but do so at times. am sure that if the hon. Gentleman analysed the antecedents of some of the actors in Labour party political broadcasts he would find them wanting. The hon. Gentleman knows well enough from past debates and discussions that what I have said about safety is absolutely correct. We are not prepared to have safety standards that do not meet the regulations. We shall increase the staff by the number necessary when we know how many private operators will come forward. Their buses will need to be checked on an annual and spot-check basis.

M25 Motorway

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of the date of the completion of construction and opening of the last link of the M25 London orbital motorway.

Mrs. Chalker: The last contract, for the length from the A405 to the A6, is due for completion in November 1986.

Mr. Chapman: If there is no slippage in the timetable for the completion of London's orbital motorway, my hon. Friend will know that fate, if not, her Department has decreed that the last link to be completed will be near to my constituency and deeply affect my constituents. In view of the undoubted and exceptional congestion that will take place on the roads in that area during that period, may I have my hon. Friend's assurance that there will be personal monitoring at ministerial level of the congestion of those roads so that exceptional and temporary traffic management schemes can be introduced if necessary?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend may not be aware that last month I did a tour with the Hertfordshire police of the A405, the M25, the A1, the Al(M) and the new section that is being built. I have discussed traffic control and traffic signing with the police and my traffic engineers. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will check the matter regularly and, in particular, when the junction 8 works on the M1 have to take place for up to a fortnight at the beginning of July. I shall keep in touch with ny hon. Friend and with the travelling public through the media about those works.

Mr. Tony Banks: As the Minister's Department will be able to "trunk" roads in London without a public inquiry, will the hon. Lady tell the House what motorway-style improvements are planned for London? Will she tell us something about the future of the west cross route?

Mrs. Chalker: First, let me make it clear for the umpteenth time that there are no proposals for motorway building in London. Secondly, the assessment studies currently being carried out, which include the possibility of a west cross route along the line of the railway, are not complete. Thorough consultations have been carried out and comments are still being received by the consultants. When I can make a statement about that, I shall do so. For the present, the hon. Gentleman knows, as well as I do, that there is a finite date by which the ownership of a limited 65 miles of road will be transferred. It means no more "trunking" than the transfer of ownership to my Department.

Mr. Higgins: Is my hon. Friend aware that, before its completion, the M25 has become a dangerous race track,


in particular during the rush hour? What consultations has she had with the Home Secretary about the necessity for adequate policing of that motorway? Are the present resources being used less than those advocated by the chief constables involved?

Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. Friend is right about the standard of driving on some sections not just of the M25 but of other roads. Unfortunately, because people tend to use the M25 for short runs only, they do not adjust to motorway driving as quickly as they should. I have already had meetings with the chief constables of the home counties and with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office about adequate policing. I am in correspondence with them to ensure that there is adequate enforcement on the motorway.

Heathrow (Fifth Terminal)

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the extent of his responsibilities in relation to the decision on the application for the construction of a fifth terminal at Heathrow.

Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. Friend has responsibility for overall policy on the future of Heathrow, but it is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment who will take the decision on the existing application from Uttlesford district council.

Mr. Jessel: Will the Government attach great weight to the strong feelings of large numbers of people around Heathrow, not just about aircraft noise, but about the huge traffic jams, to which the inquiry inspector had no satisfactory answer?

Mrs. Chalker: The feelings of the local people and the travelling public will be given proper weight in our considerations. The inspector made a number of recommendations for improvements to the roads in the vicinity of Heathrow. He also recommended that a working party be set up to study the improvements required to provide a satisfactory highway network to serve the airport, regardless of whether a fifth terminal is constructed. I assure my hon. Friend that those recommendations will be carefully considered.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend accept that for many years the people of Ealing and west London have suffered unbearable aircraft noise and pollution as well as the traffic congestion to which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) referred, and that a fifth terminal would make life intolerable and must be resisted at all costs?

Mrs. Chalker: I cannot comment, as I think my hon. Friend knows. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction will make their decision as soon as they can.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister accept that the development of a fifth terminal will act as a positive incentive for regional airline operators such as Ecosse Air, which now flies from Carlisle to London? Because of the success of the airline on that route, will the Minister put it to Ecosse Air that the people of Cumbria need a jet link from Carlisle to London? Will the Minister support that principle?

Mrs. Chalker: I have noted very carefully what the hon. Gentleman said, but, as I said earlier, I am afraid that in the light of the decision to be taken on the Eyre inquiry I cannot comment further.

Mr. Tim Smith: What representations have been received by the Department of Transport from those living in the area around Heathrow? Is my hon. Friend aware of the deep concern about the environmental impact of a fifth terminal on an area of the green belt which is already under severe pressure?

Mrs. Chalker: Just as the inspector at the inquiry was well aware, so also are we well aware of those representations. However, I cannot comment further. All the representations will be borne in mind.

Bus Services

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what further representations he has received regarding the Transport Bill.

Mr. David Mitchell: Since the publication of the Transport Bill at the end of January we have received around 800 letters and a number of petitions about various aspects of the policy.

Mr. Pike: If the Minister will not consider the widespread opposition to the Bill and drop it, will he at least give an assurance that no person who enjoys concessionary fares at present will be detrimentally affected by the passage of the Bill? Will he also assure the House that those employed in the industry will not find that their pay and conditions are worsened when the Bill becomes law?

Mr. Mitchell: Concessionary fares are a matter for local decision by locally elected people. The hon. Gentleman is already aware that it is not for the Government to dictate what pattern they choose to follow.

Mr. Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend aware that those who enjoy the meanest and most unsatisfactory of bus services are easy fodder for the distortions of the Oppostion, in particular since Labour councils have promised that when the Bill becomes an Act no financial support will be given by county councils to existing bus services? Is it not time for a more determined effort to be made to present the virtues of the bus policy nationwide so that people may be satisfied that their services, particularly in rural areas, are likely to be improved, not destroyed?

Mr. Mitchell: Ministers are undertaking a series of visits to explain the Government's policy and proposals in order to combat the widespread distrotion to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred. So widespread and so extensive is it in some parts of the country that local authorities have been spending not hundreds, not thousands, but in some cases over £100,000 of ratepayers' money on campaigns to distort and discredit the Government's proposals.

Mr. Madden: Is the Minister not aware that Conservative Members of Parliament have been telling those who are very concerned about losing their concessionary fares that they have nothing to worry about? The Minister seems to be peddling a new line from the Dispatch Box. Will he give a clear assurance that if the


Transport Bill is enacted all bus operators will be required to preserve concessionary schemes in those areas which now operate them and that they will be no worse that existing schemes?

Mr. Mitchell: Two separate matters arise from this question: first, the scale of the concession; and, secondly, the operators through whom it is available. The Bill provides that concessions through operators will have to be available to all operators and not, as at present, be reserved to the municipal operator or to the other favoured son of the rating authority. As for the level of concessionary fares, I repeat the point that I made earlier: it is for the local authority to decide what it believes to be right in the light of its own local circumstances.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: My hon. Friend has already said a little about the pension rights of the various bus operators' employees, but is he aware that there is great concern about pensions and that it must be a matter of principle for pension rights to be fully protected after the Bill is passed? Will he therefore say a little more about this matter?

Mr. Mitchell: It may be helpful if I say that I understand that the matter will be debated fully in the Committee examining the Bill. I am sure that all the more detailed points in which my hon. Friend is interested will be brought out then. It is for the National Bus Company to make the proposals which it believes to be appropriate in relation to its staff and their pensions. We fully accept that the position of the staff has to be protected.

Mr. Freud: As the Adam Smith Institute would appear to be the only organisation supporting the Transport Bill, will the Minister have another look at the 800 representations that he has had and heed the voices of more moderate groups such as the Women's Institute?

Mr. Mitchell: A number of groups, particularly those representing the consumer, have expressed support in principle for the Government's proposals. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman should be aware that there has been widespread misunderstanding and distortion as to what the Government's proposals actually envisage.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister explain to the general public that, far from writing in safeguards either for those who work in the industry or for consumers who at present have concessionary fares, he is removing the few safeguards that exist? Why did he agree to remove from the Bill, more than two thirds of the way through the Committee stage, a safeguard which would have enabled the public to make representations to the traffic commissioners about the quality of the operators? Is that what the hon. Gentleman calls offering safeguards? Is he not just, as always in the Bill, seeking to perpetrate an enormous confidence trick on the public?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Lady knows perfectly well that what she is suggesting is not true. The position is that we removed, under pressure from my hon. Friends, a clause in the Bill which was otiose, unnecessary and repetitive, and the right of being heard by the traffic commissioners that remains.

Channel Link

Mr. Roger King: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be in a position to invite applications to build a fixed Channel link.

Mrs. Chalker: Guidance was issued to promoters on 2 April following a statement in the House.

Mr. King: Many colleagues on both sides of the House will welcome the statement that at long last, after nearly 200 years of discussion, something concrete will happen with regard to the Channel link. Will my hon. Friend give the House an indication as to how many people will be employed, not just pouring concrete, but in the steelworks?

Mrs. Chalker: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. However, it will depend on the project—if there is a project—as to how much employment the building and operation of the link, if it is to go ahead, will provide. The structure will also affect where the employment will be. However, steel, shipbuilding yards, traffic control, signal makers, for both road and rail routes. the construction industry, the heavy goods equipment industry —all such industries—could benefit if the decision is made to go ahead.

Mr. Anderson: What special efforts will the Department make to ensure that we get our fair share of the contracts involved?

Mrs. Chalker: I presume that the hon. Gentleman is referring not to the United Kingdom generally but to Wales in particular. Obviously, we are bound, if the project is going ahead, by the rules within Europe, but we shall do all that we can to make sure that the British tenders, if they are called for, are—

Mrs. Dunwoody: If they are called for?

Mrs. Chalker: If the project is to go ahead. Such a decision has not been taken, as the House is well aware. We shall do our best to ensure that all the British tenders are among the best tenders. That will ensure that the jobs will come to Britain if the project is to go ahead.

Mr. Skeet: Is my hon. Friend aware that between the French and British systems there is an entirely different trend in planning procedures, and that on the British side there will be no planning inquiry? Does my hon. Friend not regard that as a defect in the arrangements, and how will the ordinary people in the street be able to express their view if it is to be only by private Bill procedure?

Mrs. Chalker: The Bill procedure in the House, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said when he made his statement on 2 April, would be by a Government Bill, which would be a hybrid Bill. That would cover the planning procedures necessary. However, we are giving full consideration to the most appropriate form of consultation if and when proposals satisfying all the requirements in the guidelines have been received from the promoters.

St. Pancras to Sheffield Line

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has recently held discussions with the chairman of the British Railways Board regarding the further electrification of the St. Pancras to Sheffield line.

Mr. David Mitchell: No, Sir.

Mr. Flannery: Is the Minister aware that the deep, abiding, and growing concern about the future of this vital line has resulted in the past year alone in three conferences


of all the councils along the line? Rather than accentuating people's fears by stating that the line is not in danger, when everyone knows that it is, will the Minister now allay those fears by stating that it is intended to carry out the planned electrification of the line beyond Bedford and gradually further up over the years?

Mr. Mitchell: If there is deep concern, it is because the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends have been peddling it. There is no cause whatever for such concern. British Rail has shown its faith in the line by introducing high speed trains on it only two years ago, resulting in a 20 minutes faster run to London and an increase in the number of passengers of between 15 and 20 per cent. Against that background, the hon. Gentleman should know that it is inconceivable that the ideas that he has been peddling should ever come to fruition.

Mr. Parris: Is my hon. Friend aware that Derbyshire county council, no doubt with local elections in mind, is planning yet another conference on electrification of the railway? Will he let the council know that there are cheaper ways of communicating with British Rail and with the Department?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the future of the line, the way in which it is managed and operated and any investment proposed for it are entirely matters for British Rail. He is thus also right to suggest that if people are worried or concerned about the line they should address themselves to British Rail, which will provide the same reassurance as I have given today.

Air Traffic (Holland-United Kingdom)

Mr. Robert B. Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the effect of the more liberal air services agreement with the Dutch Government on traffic between Holland and the United Kingdom.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Excellent. In the first eight months, London-Amsterdam traffic was 16 per cent.)higher than it was a year before, compared with an average growth in air traffic of 9 per cent. between London and Europe as a whole. Six more services have begun between the United Kingdom and the Netherlands and a further 10 are proposed.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, which fully illustrates the beneficial effects of deregulation and competition. Having already achieved the same deal with Luxembourg, will he now try to negotiate similar arrangements with other countries, such as France and Italy? May we look forward to further progress in that respect?

Mr. Spicer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the Luxembourg agreement, which we hope will be a model for future agreements with other countries. We are especially pleased with the arrangements whereby the airlines can set their own tariffs, subject only to the very rare cases in which both Governments disagree with them. In the case of Luxembourg, the lowest return fare has already fallen from £98 to £73.

Mrs. Dunwoody: If the Minister is really such a great believer in free enterprise, why has British Airways been offered a subsidy of £7 million to run a doubly expensive air service to the Falkland Islands? I should have thought that if the Royal Air Force could run services more cheaply than British Airways—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a little wide of the question—unless the Dutch aircraft go there, too.

Bus Services

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from Newport borough council and Gwent county council on the deregulation of bus services.

Mr. David Mitchell: We have received representations from Gwent county council and Newport borough council opposing various aspects of the proposals in the White Paper.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the inadequate protection of pension benefits is a serious bone of contention? Does he agree that the Bill fails to provide the "no-worsening of protection" which employees and pensioners of local authority undertakings and the National Bus Company are entitled to expect?

Mr. Mitchell: I have already answered two similar questions. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty, but I can give him the assurance that we have fully in mind the pension needs to which he refers.

Bedford Midland to Leicester (Electrification)

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received any proposals from British Rail for the electrification of the route from Bedford Midland to Leicester or for works to facilitate such electrification; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Mitchell: We have received no such proposals from British Rail.

Mr. Bruinvels: Nevertheless, is my hon. Friend aware that a conference was held on 15 March at Leicestershire county hall to consider the future of electrification? Bearing in mind that there is already electrification as far as Bedford, will my hon. Friend talk to British Rail about the matter? The minutes of the conference show support for further electrification. The line is already electrified between London and Bedford, and there has been a doubling of the service.

Mr. Mitchell: British Rail is involved in the electrification of the east coast main line, the Cambridgeshire service, the Tonbridge-Hastings service and the East Anglia service. I understand that BR is considering a proposal for the electrification of the Bedford-Kettering section, with a possible link with Corby, but I have not yet received a formal proposal on the matter.

Mr. Snape: Will not the Minister accept that it was only pressure from Sheffield city council, Members of Parliament and others that persuaded BR to run high-speed trains in the first place? British Rail opposed the proposal for a considerable time. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that the Midland main line is treated as the poor relation among BR's main line services and that if it is left to the BR management to make such proposals the citizens of Sheffield and other stations on the line will wait for a long time for an electrified service.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman says that the Midland line is a poor relation, but in view of the substantial investment, the introduction of modern rolling


stock and HSTs and all the other ways in which BR has improved the service, I believe that many other parts of the country would be glad to be treated in a similar way.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the Attorney-General if he will update the figures given to the hon. Member for Leicester, East on 18 March, Official Report, column 629, regarding cases heard by the courts and cases outstanding in connection with the recent coal mining dispute to the latest available date.

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): My reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) on 18 March was based upon statistics compiled by the national reporting centre, which has now closed down. I am therefore unable to say exactly how many cases outstanding at the conclusion of the dispute have yet to be heard. The available figures, although not covering all courts, show that a very substantial number of cases have been dealt with, and I would like to congratulate the magistrates and the court officials on the magnificent way in which they have dealt with this extra burden.

Mr. Bruinvels: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer and join him in congratulating the magistrates who have handled that shocking catalogue of outstanding cases. May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to find out how many cases are still awaiting charge and trial? Victimisation is now occurring again at pits between working miners who never went on strike and miners who returned to work, and there is a need for a deterrent in future.

The Attorney-General: Where cases of harassment have occurred since the end of the strike, police inquiries are under way. In the case of Mrs. Watson, the Director of Public Prosecutions has advised that certain charges be preferred. If there is any continuing harassment, I do not want those who perpetrate it to feel that they will escape justice.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The latest available figures—those made available before the closure of the national reporting centre — show that out of 9,808 persons arrested only 7,917 have been charged to date, and that of those 1,335 have so far been acquitted. At least 1,000 cases remain to be heard. The overwhelming majority of the cases involve trivial charges against previously law-abiding persons. That being so, I urge the Attorney-General to think again about the answer that he gave me on the last occasion when the matter was raised at Question Time, and to make a general statement, which could provide guidance for those pursuing such prosecutions, at considerable expense to the taxpayer, and to the detriment of respect for the law in mining constituencies. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman issue a general statement telling those people to ease off?

The Attorney-General: The grant of an amnesty is not within my powers, as in most cases the chief constable is responsible. Even if it were within my powers, it would be highly inappropriate, and not conducive to the preservation of the peace during industrial disputes, for me to give such guidance. It would also be unfair to those

already convicted. There must be a number of borderline cases. One saw that recently in Nottingham, when a number of cases were dropped.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Geoffrey Dickens.

Mr. Dickens: Might I ask my right hon. and learned Friend—did you say "Jester", Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, Mr. Geoffrey Dickens.

Mr. Dickens: I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend, without jesting, whether he agrees that incidents during the miners' strike rather tarnished the good name of the country? That being so, is it not important that justice is seen to be done and to be dispatched quickly? Was that not the very reason why our Prime Minister thought it necessary to assure our friends in the middle east that we had come to grips with this problem?

The Attorney-General: I also misheard you, Mr. Speaker, when you called my hon. Friend. I shall not discuss anything that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said abroad. There is no doubt that what happened during the picketing and the harassment during the strike did nothing for the good name of Britain. However, many people have been prosecuted — the conviction rate overall is about 75 per cent.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I simply say to the hon. Member that if I did say that, it was a term of endearment.

Administration of Justice

Mr. Spearing: asked the Attorney-General if he is satisfied with the speed of the administration of justice in relation to civil cases; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General: Although I am satisfied that cases are heard as quickly as possible given the resources at present available and the existing procedural rules, the Lord Chancellor, with the full co-operation of the judges, is always seeking ways in which to improve procedure and administration and has recently set up the major inquiry known as the civil justice review. The speed with which a case comes to trial depends to a very substantial extent on the efforts made by the parties.

Mr. Spearing: I thank the Attorney-General for that answer and information. Is he aware that the legal procedures relating to the original collapse of Ronan Point in 1968 are still moving through the courts and have some way to run? Might the review that he has mentioned be of assistance in this matter, and does its ambit extend to the Official Referee, with whom I understand the case now stands?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for telling me what he would follow his original question with, as I have been able to do a careful inquiry to give the detailed reply which I think he should have. In this case, as in all civil proceedings, the responsibility for carrying the action forward rests with the parties. Although the writ was issued in 1970, the case was not ready for trial for many years and, as late as November 1978, the defendants obtained leave to amend their defence. The trial took place on 25 February 1980–10 years after the writ. The judgment was appealed against,


unsuccessfully, on 9 July 1981. The question of quantum was referred to an official referee. A preliminary issue raised by the defendant was dealt with by the official referee, but, here again, the decision was appealed against. Bundles of documents for the appeal were not approved until March this year. It is plain that the complexity and importance of the issues and the amount of documentation have made preparation a lengthy task. One explanation might be that an affidavit lodged by the defendants refers to the disclosure of more than 100,000 documents.
All of those matters are within the control of the parties, but procedure generally will be part of the civil justice review, and I hope that such matters will be looked into. There is a remedy for the plaintiff. No plaintiff needed to let this take 10 years to get to trial. He has certain remedies which could force the case on much earlier.

Mr. Viggers: Following the original question, might I put it to my right hon. and learned Friend that there is a delay of about two years in settling a date for trial for commercial cases in the commercial court? Bearing in mind the significance to our international trade of the availability of British justice, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider devoting more resources to this area of activity so that the trial process can be speeded up?

The Attorney-General: In a sense, the problem is rather ironic as it is a testament to the court's popularity that many contracts, parties to which—[Interruption.]It will be seen that that is right. Many entirely overseas contracts, neither party to which has any connection with Britain, have written into them a provision that any dispute is to be settled in accordance with English law. That is a great tribute to our commercial court, but it has led to an enormous increase in the court's work. The Lord Chancellor is well aware of this, and he and the commercial court committee are considering the question of delay with a view to reducing it.

Uninsured Defendants

Mr. Nicholas Brown: asked the Attorney-General why it is intended by the proposed amendments to the Supreme Court rules submitted to the Supreme Court rule committee by the Lord Chancellor's Department to exclude from the operation of section 6 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 plaintiffs taking action against uninsured defendants other than public authorities.

The Attorney-General: This restriction follows the recommendation in paragraph 240 of the report of the Law Commission, No. 56, which led to the enactment of section 6. A similar restriction applies in Scotland. The matter is now one for the Supreme Court rule committee, which is now considering it.

Mr. Brown: Surely the issue is that some defendants may be able to pay compensation even though they are not insured. There does not seem to be any good reason for securing the position of such people, because if it is secured they are better off than they would have been had they followed the law and got themselves insured.

The Attorney-General: The rule committee is looking at that and all the other attendant problems which follow —for example, who is to be exempted, should it be just those recommended by the Law Commission, or should we widen the scope? The probable thinking behind the

Law Commission's recommendation is that there must be some finality, particularly for the uninsured defendant who has the possibility of an enormous claim hanging over him for perhaps the rest of his life. That is one of the matters which obviously caused the Law Commission to make that recommendation.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Food Aid

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the amount of food and aid currently being distributed in Eritrea and Tigre; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): Although food and other relief supplies are arriving in Ethiopia in large quantities, I believe that there is a serious shortfall in Eritrea and Tigre. The United Nations co-ordinator is discussing this with the Ethiopian authorities. At the United Nations conference in Geneva last month the Ethiopian Foreign Minister gave a solemn pledge that relief supplies would be distributed to all those in need, without diversion, delay or discrimination. Together with other donors, we are working to ensure that that pledge is honoured.

Mr. Parry: I thank the Minister for that reply, and I am glad to hear that the Government intend to maintain pressure on the Ethiopian Government. Is the Royal Air Force still dropping supplies in Eritrea and Tigre?

Mr. Raison: The RAF is still carrying out its food aid operation, and we shall carefully consider its continuation.

Mr. Prentice: May I ask about the impact of this programme on the rest of the aid programme? While we appreciate that my right hon. Friend has a contingency fund for emergencies, does not the size and scale of this year's disaster in east Africa and the length of time it is likely to last make a case for an upward revision of the entire programme? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be much support from some Conservative Members if that could be arranged?

Mr. Raison: I understand my right hon. Friend's point, but I have already announced at the Geneva conference a provisional figure for the quantity of emergency relief which we expect to provide as a minimum, and we can contain that figure within our aid budget.

Mr. Alton: Does not the present crisis and what the right hon. Gentleman said about the United Nations demonstrate the need for an overall strategic policy for the distribution of food? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is now a need to turn loans into grants in respect of the 30 poorest countries, and does he further agree that there is a need to diversify in the nine African countries which rely on just one crop for 70 per cent. of their income?

Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman has asked a diversity of questions. This country and quite a number of other major donors already turn loans into grants, and quite right too. As to overall strategy, we are thinking very carefully about the totality of our policy in Africa, where many of the greatest problems clearly lie.

Ethiopia

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the famine in Ethiopia.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the famine in Ethiopia and future United Kingdom Government plans for aid and assistance.

Mr. Raison: Several million Ethiopians remain at risk. Relief supplies are reaching many of those in need but distribution and other problems persist. Pledges of food aid to Ethiopia for 1985 total more than 1 million tonnes. We shall continue to provide emergency and food relief. both directly and through the European Community.

Mr. Jessel: What part in total has Britain played in bringing about any improvement, how great is the remaining need, and what more can we do?

Mr. Raison: In recent months we have made a significant contribution to Ethiopia amounting to some £34 million. We have provided food aid, the RAF Hercules detachments, trucks, other transport and other supplies. We have also met our share of the substantial European Community contribution. The needs remain considerable, and we intend to play our part for the remainder of this year.

Mr. Chapman: Is it not obvious that the problem in Ethiopia is not one of insufficient food—because there are ample supplies, at least until the end of this year—but of distribution? In commending both public and private contributions from the United Kingdom to that unfortunate country, is it not a matter for condemnation of the Ethiopian authorities that they cannot distribute the food? In many cases they have inhibited other countries which have offered to distribute that food to the people who need it.

Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend is broadly right. The overall quantities pledged to Ethiopia look as though they should be enough for this year, but there are serious problems about internal distribution. In our view the Ethiopian Government need to fulfil their promise of nearly 4,000 vehicles for relief and rescue operations on food movements. We also believe that too great a share of their resources are at present going on resettlement.

Mr. Deakins: Is the Minister aware that there are many lessons to be learnt from the handling of the famine in Ethiopia? Will he assure the House that those lessons will be appreciated by all the aid donors, the multinational organisations and volunteer agencies, in order to be ready for the next famine in another African country?

Mr. Raison: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have thought hard about what has been happening in Ethiopia and Sudan. Tragic though the experience is, I am sure that we shall learn from it.

Mr. Stuart Holland: The Minister will be aware that the problem in Ethiopia also relates to refugees in Sudan, whom the House debated earlier. The problem relates to debt. Recently we have seen a fall of the Government in Sudan largely because of the debt crisis. What advice has the Minister given the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will attend a joint meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank about this issue later this month,

to ensure that meeting Africa's needs is a priority issue and that there is a debt write-off or, at least, a grant funding of some of the debts so that those countries can tackle the appalling drought problem?

Mr. Raison: The debt problem in Sudan is a different matter from the famine in Ethiopia, to which the question relates. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be thinking hard about how to handle debts in the meetings which take place in Washington this month. No one doubts the importance of that, although, as I have already said, one of the positive features of our aid programme in Africa is that for poor countries aid takes the form of a grant and, therefore, does not generate debts.

European Development Fund (Contracts)

Mr. Baldry: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the share of contracts from the European development fund won by British companies.

Mr. Raison: Twenty-five per cent. of EDF contracts are placed in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. Of those placed in Europe, our cumulative share at the end of 1984 was 192 per cent. For the first time that exceeded our contribution of 17·76 per cent.

Mr. Baldry: I thank my right hon. Friend for what is essentially good news. How do the 1984 figures compare with those of previous years? Does he agree that Third world countries depend for their growth as much on vibrant trade with nations such as Britain as on development aid?

Mr. Raison: The 1984 figure of 19·2 per cent. was nearly 2 per cent. more than the 1983 figure. As my hon. Friend said, that is an encouraging tendency He is absolutely right to stress the importance of trade

Mr. Madden: Does the Minister not regard it as a great tragedy that in places such as Bradford there are large numbers of skilled engineers who could be put to work manufacturing tractors, irrigation and agricultural equipment, trucks and other items which would help to combat the food crisis in Ethiopia and elsewhere? What are the Government doing to invest in manufacturing projects in the United Kingdom, which would put British engineers back to work and help to alleviate starvation in the world?

Mr. Raison: Almost 80 per cent. of the money that we spend through our bilateral aid programme finds its way back to Britain in the form of either goods or services. It is also a fact that the European development fund, the World Bank and other multilateral organisations offer many opportunities, which are often taken up, for British manufacturers to make goods to be sent to the Third world.

Leeward Islands Air Transport

Mr. Rhodes James: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Leeward Islands Air Transport has yet reached an agreement with British Aerospace for the purchase of Super 748s with an aid grant from Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Raison: Leeward Islands Air Transport has entered into a contract with British Aerospace, subject to finalisation of ECGD support and the conclusion of a formal agreement between LIAT and Her Majesty's


Government on the terms of the proposed aid grant for two Super 748s. LIAT has already accepted the broad terms of the Government's offer.

Mr. Rhodes James: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that useful and welcome reply, may I ask him, first, what is the sum of money involved and, secondly, whether there are any other sources of finance for this welcome order?

Mr. Raison: We have offered an aid grant from our aid-trade provision up to a maximum of £3·83 million. I understand that the Caribbean Development Bank is providing resources for two other 748 aircraft.

African Governments (Debt Burden)

Mr. Stuart Holland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with African Governments concerning the impact of their debt burden on the effectiveness of aid programmes.

Mr. Raison: My discussions wih African Governments about aid policy from time to time take into account, as appropriate, their debt burdens. Debt problems normally feature within the analysis of aid needs and economic policies considered at each World Bank-led consultative group.

Mr. Holland: The Minister will be aware that at least £42 billion worth of debt affects African countries as a whole. Since we have this useful chance to further the issue, would he now care to say whether and on what scale

in the IMF and World Bank meetings there will be pressure from the Chancellor to write off a proportion of that debt, without which there will be no way in which countries such as Ethiopia or Sudan can overcome their debt problem?

Mr. Raison: I do not believe, and nor does my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the wholesale writing-off of debts is the right answer. However, we have made it clear that, to help countries with balance of payments difficulties, we are willing to consider providing programme aid if they can come to an agreement with the IMF.

Oral Answers to Questions — Prime Minister's Questions (Printing)

Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about the printing of Prime Minister's Questions. The House will wish to know that I have approved the recommendation in the first report from the Select Committee on Procedure regarding a shortened form of printing Oral Questions tabled for answer by the Prime Minister. I have also approved a resolution of the Services Committee which endorses the scheme that has been proposed. Arrangements are being made for the new format to apply to all notices of Questions given from tomorrow onwards. This means that the first Order Paper in the new form will appear on Tuesday 30 April. I am obliged to both Committees for their advice.

Gas (Northern Ireland)

Mr. Peter Archer: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the rejection by the Government of the proposals of the gas industry joint working group and the consequences of that for the future of the gas industry in Northern Ireland.
The matter is specific. Last autumn, the Government announced that the project for the purchase of natural gas from the Kinsale field was not to proceed. The then Minister of State added that the Government were not prepared to continue to provide a subsidy for the industry and that since, as he said, the Kinsale project had appeared to offer the only prospect for a viable gas industry, they would have to take stock of the position. He meant that they were preparing legislation to wind up the industry, but he invited representations from the interests involved.
At once, the Northern Ireland Gas Employers Board and the gas trade union group established a joint working group, which produced a plan to rescue the industry. That plan was examined by two independent firms of consultants, which confirmed, first, that it would offer gas to the people of Belfast at a price 25 per cent. below the current price and, secondly, that no subsidy was involved, since over eight years it would be self-financing, with a positive overall profit of £261 million.
That plan was submitted to the Government. On Good Friday, the Minister of State gave his Easter offering to the people of Northern Ireland. He announced that he had rejected the plan and he confirmed that that would mean the end of the gas industry in Northern Ireland.
There is no doubt about the importance of the matter. The closure of the gas industry will cost more than 1,000 jobs in the industry itself, in addition to those which will be placed at risk in industries that depend on gas. The effect on consumers may be demonstrated briefly by the fact that the cost of electricity in Northern Ireland is, admittedly and unashamedly, held by the Government at the price level in the highest-priced region of Great Britain.
In considering whether the matter should have urgent consideration, Mr. Speaker, you may wish to have in mind the timing of the announcement. On Thursday 4 April, the House rose for the recess. On that day, Ministers were

answering Northern Ireland questions and hon. Members from Northern Ireland were in the Chamber. If it was not considered appropriate to give the information ir_ answer to a question, there would have been no difficulty in making a statement. No mention was made of the matter. The announcement was made the next day, after the House had risen. It would be difficult to recollect a more calculated or deliberate slap in the face for this House.
I believe that it is not yet too late to save the industry. Clearly, the Government intend those in that and other industries to make any future decisions on the basis that gas as a form of energy will no longer be an option. With every day that passes, the prospect of saving the industry recedes.
I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to permit the House an opportunity to make its voice known before the knife is finally driven home.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the rejection by the Government of the proposals of the gas industry joint working group and the consequences of that for the future of the gas industry in Northern Ireland.
I listened with great care to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. As he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 10 is to decide whether it should have priority over the business already set down for this evening or for tomorrow.
I regret that I cannot find that the matter that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised meets all the criteria laid down in the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the three motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the Town and Country Planning (Compensation for Restrictions on Mineral Working) Regulations 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Specialized Agencies of the United Nations (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Eumetsat (Legal Capacities) Order 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. —[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Orders of the Day — Surrogacy Arrangements Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The first point that I should make about the Bill is that, although I believe that its aims are important and have been widely welcomed on both sides of the House, it is a measure that is strictly limited in its extent. Basically, it seeks to prohibit the operation in this country of commercial surrogacy agencies and the advertising of surrogacy services.
What it does not do is attempt to deal with all the issues raised in the Warnock report which I published last year. As the House knows, those issues range from the legal status of surrogate children to the proposals concerning a statutory licensing authority to oversee research. Many of the issues are complex, and there is deep division about some of the issues, which has been expressed in many of the responses that we have received to the Warnock report.
The Government accept that the proper way to handle these issues is by a comprehensive piece of legislation. Work on that is now taking place, with the intention of introducing such comprehensive legislation as soon as practicable and as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.
On commercial surrogacy, the question that the Government had to consider was whether it would be better to leave that issue also to the main Bill or whether action could be taken ahead of it. We decided that legislation could and should be introduced. The main reason for that was the considerable concern following the Baby Cotton case in January. The House will recall that Mrs. Cotton received payment from a commercial agency acting on behalf of the commissioning couple. The baby was subsequently made a ward of court and, indeed, remains so. However, Mr. Justice Latey gave care and control of the child to the commissioning parents with permission to take the child out of the jurisdiction of the court.
The case illustrated the kind of difficulties and dangers that the Warnock committee had already drawn to the attention of the public. The Warnock committee was in no doubt about commercial surrogacy, and stated:
We have considered whether the criminal law should have any part to play in the control of surrogacy and have concluded that it should. We recognise that there is a serious risk of commercial exploitation of surrogacy and that this would be difficult to prevent without the assistance of the criminal law.
Similar views have been expressed by many other bodies.
In the consultation which followed the publication of the Warnock report, the overwhelming response was to the effect that commercial arrangements should be prohibited. Over 90 per cent. of all comments received opposed surrogacy undertaken on a commercial basis. That included the churches, women's organisations and professional bodies such as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Nursing.
The arguments against commercial surrogacy are overwhelming. When it comes to adoption, we do not

allow commercial arrangements, for the good reason that the paramount concern must be the interests of the child. The same argument applies here. However sympathetic we may be to the commissioning parents, the interests of the child must come first.
Many would argue against all surrogacy arrangements, but it is clear that the presence of commercial agencies risks the exploitation of women by agencies with a financial incentive. Frankly, I believe that it is simply unacceptable to sell children, whether before or after birth.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the individual woman appears not to be covered by the Bill, because she would not, as an individual acting privately, be an agency? Could she not exploit herself by offering herself for gain as a surrogate mother? Does he agree that that would be wrong and that a provision to cover that possibility should be included in the Bill?

Mr. Fowler: The House will have to make a judgment on that. Our judgment is that it would be wrong to involve the woman in that way, first because of the possibility of the taint of criminality on the child and, secondly, because it is just as likely that the woman would herself be exploited. That is why we have not extended the concept of criminality to the mother. However, it is a point that the House can consider.
The case for acting now is overwhelming. If the Government were to wait to make regulations under a comprehensive Warnock Bill, the result would be a delay in which more births would be likely to take place into what everyone agrees is a lebal limbo. That could lead to one of the tragic cases which have occurred in the United States, for example, of a handicapped baby born and disowned by both his mother and the commissioning parents. A Bill now can do something to prevent such problems from arising.
The legislation therefore has the limited but vital objective of prohibiting the further development of commercial surrogacy in Britain. It will also ban the advertising of surrogacy services by agencies, surrogate mothers or commissioning parents.
Clause 1 defines a number of terms for the purposes of the Bill, in particular "surrogate mother" and "surrogacy arrangement". Clause 2 provides for the prohibition of commercial surrogacy agencies, and subsection (1) lists the activities in relation to surrogacy which the Bill prohibits if done on a commercial basis. These involve initiating, or taking part in, negotiations with a view to making a surrogacy arrangement or compiling information with such a view. An important provision of clause 2 is subsection (2), which excludes surrogate mothers—to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) just referred — and commissioning parents from an offence under subsection (1).
Our prime aim in this measure is to outlaw commercial agencies. It is not part of the purpose of the Bill to penalise the infertile couple who may be driven by their plight into making a surrogacy arrangement. Nor do we want to penalise the surrogate mother, who may genuinely consider that she is helping another woman who is unable to carry a child by making parenthood possible for her. We must guard against the possibility that such women might be exploited by commercial agencies. We have therefore concluded that it would be best not to penalise the surrogate mother.

Mr. John Butterfill: Has my right hon. Friend considered that charities might be established for the express purpose of operating a surrogacy agency, which would not be covered by the Bill? Such organisations might even be funded by the GLC, for example.

Mr. Fowler: I shall leave aside the last part of my hon. Friend's intervention, as I do not particularly want to enter into that issue. The House has a choice, because we could leave the provisions that are set out in the Bill until a more major Bill is introduced that encompasses the recommendations of the Warnock committee. I think that it is right to take limited action now, as a matter of urgency. We have tried to frame a Bill that will find agreement on both sides of the House and I think that we have achieved that.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is concern about any kind of surrogacy, irrespective of whether money is passed? I have read the Bill carefully and I cannot find any provisions in it that cover non-commercial surrogacy. A woman might lend out her body, as it were, for a friend. Are there any plans to introduce provisions that will cover that circumstance?

Mr. Fowler: Many of the individuals and representatives of organisations which have given evidence to us believe that surrogacy generally should be prohibited. There are many issues, including the practical steps that can be taken to prevent it happening. That is part of the consideration that we are giving to the report of the Warnock committee.

Sir Bernard Braine: Am I not right in saying that the Warnock committee recommended making all surrogacy arrangements illegal? The House would be more persuaded by my right hon. Friend if he could say when his comprehensive Bill is likely to come before us. It cannot be introduced until the next Session at the very earliest, which means that it cannot become law until the summer of 1986 at the very earliest. The present arrangements will continue until then unless my right hon. Friend is seized of the fact that many hon. Members and the country generally are deeply concerned about the distasteful practice of surrogacy.

Mr. Fowler: I hope that my right hon. Friend is seized of the fact that the Government are concerned about these matters and, as an exceptional measure, have introduced the Bill. It would be wrong for my right hon. Friend and me to fall out over this issue, as we both want to achieve the same result. The more major Bill that is to be introduced will be designed to implement many of the recommendations of the Warnock committee. I say to my right hon Friend, in the spirit of friendship, that it would be wrong to attack the Bill on the ground that it does not go far enough. As I said in my first sentence in introducing the Bill, it is a limited measure that has been introduced to deal with a specific abuse. The Government hope that it will receive the consent of both sides of the House.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that there are boundaries to the law within personal arrangements in society and that to go beyond certain boundaries could be construed as officious?

Mr. Fowler: I am suggesting that in the area covered by the Bill there is almost total unanimity. That is the impression that I was given by the evidence that I heard. The views on commercial surrogacy which have been expressed by the Warnock committee and by virtually all the organisations which have given evidence to us accord with the provisions set out in the Bill. We are trying to take action urgently following the Baby Cotton case. I do not think that any of us wants to see a repetition of that sort of case. That is why the Government are acting urgently. We are not pre-empting any further action that might be taken. I am entirely seized of the point expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), about the need for an urgent response.
I shall continue with my exposition of the Bill. The provisions in clause 2 to which I have not yet referred deal with offences. If a body of persons receives payment for a surrogacy arrangement or a person knowingly takes part in the management and control of a body which acts commercially in these matters, they or he will have committed an offence.
Clause 3 deals with advertising. It makes it an offence to advertise surrogacy services where the advertisement is made by an agency, by commissioning parents or by a surrogate mother. This provision is cast more widely than clause 2 and so applies to the commissioning parent and the surrogate mother. This is because advertising may well be a first step towards commercial activities of the kind that the Bill is designed to prohibit. We have framed this provision to catch all the main forms of advertising, whether in newspapers or periodicals published here or on radio or television intended to be received here.
Clause 4 deals with penalties and provides that an offence relating to agency activities carried out on a comercial basis—an offence under clause 2—carries a penalty of three months imprisonment or a fine not exceeding £2,000, or both. Offences under clause 3, relating to advertising, carry a penalty of a fine only not exceeding £2,000. Clause 4(2) provides that prosecutions need the consent, as appropriate, of the Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales or the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland for cases in Northern Ireland.
Clause 5 provides that the Bill shall extend to the whole of the United Kingdom. As there is no specific commencement provision, the legislation will come into force after receiving the Royal Assent.
We believe that the publicity that there has already been about our intentions in this measure will have been sufficient to forewarn many people who are already involved in the activities that the Bill will prohibit or any who might have been contemplating setting up commercial surrogacy agencies. I have been encouraged by reports that the major commercial surrogacy agency operating in Britain has already decided to stop functioning in the expectation of the enactment of the Bill.
We know that there are several surrogate pregnancies already arranged by commercial agencies which clearly cannot be affected by the Bill. To take account of these and other surrogate births, we recognise that there may be a need for guidance for local authorities on the action that they should consider if they become aware of a surrogate birth.
When I made my initial statement, my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) asked what could be done for those NA, who are


involved in a similar tangle to that of Baby Cotton's parents. A similar point has also been put by Mr. Justice Latey who dealt so expeditiously and sensitively with the case of Baby Cotton. The judgment in that case made it clear that the High Court has powers to protect the interests of children born as a result of surrogacy arrangements and that it will use the powers where necessary. In addition, local authorities have powers and duties to protect children who may be at risk.
My Department will therefore shortly issue a circular of guidance to local authorities. The guidance will set out the general principles on which local authorities should operate—not just in cases that this Bill seeks to prevent but in other cases where there is no commercial element. An authority that knows that a baby has been or is about to be born in its area as a result of a surrogacy arrangement will wish to make inquiries to satisfy itself that the baby is not or will not be at risk. Obviously, the circumstances can vary widely in individual cases. An authority's overriding concern in deciding what, if any, action is needed will be the child's welfare. In that sense, surrogacy does not differ from any other situation in which a local authority becomes aware that there is a possibility that a child needs protection.
The guidance will deal with the legal issues involved and the steps that a local authority should take where it believes that the child may be at risk. It will draw the attention of authorities to the court judgment in the Baby Cotton case. The judgment commended the advantages in similar unusual and complex cases of making a child a ward of court. We shall be sending this advice to authorities as soon as possible.
We hope that, because of this Bill, surrogacy cases where a local authority has to intervene—as it did in the case of Baby Cotton—will in future be rare, but there are difficult matters, and I hope that authorities will find it helpful to have that advice available.

Mr. Frank Field: So that we can be clear about the nature of the measure, is the Secretary of State saying that he will not return to the House later with a measure to forbid surrogacy arrangements in which there are no financial gains for the parties involved?

Mr. Fowler: That matter is part of the consideration that the Government are giving to the wider issues raised in the Warnock report. As I have already made clear, the Government intend to bring forward a major Bill, which this does not pretend to be, to deal with all those issues. I believe that that would be in the interests of the public and is what the House would require to be done.

Mr. Michael Meacher: When can we expect such a Bill?

Mr. Fowler: The Bill and its preparation are extremely complex and subject to the demands of the parliamentary timetable. No decision on that has been made. I cannot guarantee when it will take place, but I should like to see such legislation brought forward as soon as possible. I cannot give a guarantee, because there has not yet been full consideration of the legislation.
The purpose of the Bill is to tackle the issue of commercial agencies and the advertising of surrogacy services. The Bill does not tackle all the major issues

raised in the Warnock report. The Government recognise that a major Bill will be necessary to achieve that. I emphasise that point. Nevertheless, action on commercial surrogacy is important and urgent. It has been supported by a range of outside bodies. It will go a long way towards preventing abuse and, above all, to placing the interests of the child first. It is upon that basis that I ask for the support of the House.

Mr. Michael Meacher: As the Secretary of State has been at pains to point out, this is a limited Bill targeted exclusively at outlawing the commercial dimension of surrogacy about which, as he said, there seems to be widespread abhorrence. Let me say immediately, speaking as an individual on a moral issue which will be the subject of a free vote, that I accept and support the principle underlying the Bill.
I believe that the measure is, however, unfortunately motivated by some over-reaction to the Baby Cotton case. It is a pity that for that reason the commercial aspect of surrogacy is being divorced—if that is the word—from a wider consideration of the general framework within which surrogacy should be handled.
The case for criminalising commercial agencies that procure surrogate motherhood is clear. It is based upon the genuine risk of the exploitation of desperate couples and the risk that poor women would be induced into pregnancy, at least in some cases, for the money. To put it another way, the commercial inducement to offer one's womb for rent exposes low-income women to exploitation as rich peoples' baby farms. Not only is that utterly unacceptable in itself: it raises the likelihood that the natural mother may, in due course, argue that she was pressurised into parting with the baby.
I should be the first to agree that such distressing "tugof-love" conflicts already occur in some adoptions and cannot be excluded in cases of non-commercial surrogacy. I am sure that the House will agree, however, that the cash pressure makes that far more likely in commercial cases.
There is another fundamental reason why I believe that commercial surrogate motherhood should be made illegal. It is that matters can easily go badly wrong. The commissioning father may come to believe that the child is not his—at least he cannot disprove that the surrogate mother was already pregnant at the time of impregnation; or the surrogate mother may refuse to hand over the baby after birth, as happened, as the Secretary of State mentioned, in the celebrated case in Pasadena, California, in 1981; or the baby may be severely handicapped at birth, with neither party willing to take it; or the surrogate mother may become ill during pregnancy and take certain drugs which damage the foetus.
For all these reasons, where the situation is exacerbated by impersonal surrogacy, undertaken for payment, it is wholly wrong to believe that commercial contracts, however carefully they may be drawn up by Miss Blankfield, who is the person we normally speak of in that regard, can be proof against highly damaging consequences not only for the parties to the contract but, more seriously, for the resulting child. For that reason, too, I should be glad if commercial surrogacy were ruled out.
Given my support for the Bill on those principles, I recognise that its drafting reflects some ingenious microsurgery on the part of the Department of Health and


Social Security in separating out the commercial considerations from the wider moral issues. It performs well the technical function of closing loopholes which some had thought would make a ban unworkable. The case of Kirsty Stevens which The Observer, in a celebrated article of 13 January 1985, thought would be untouched by any likely legislation, will, if I am right, be prevented in future by the ban on advertising, even by private individuals. At the same time, family arrangements will not be affected by the Bill, which I am sure is right, but it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for strangers to become known to each other, given the constraints of the Bill, as willing participants.
I have one technical criticism about the drafting of the Bill. The imposition of strict criminal liability on newspaper proprietors and editors who unwittingly publish advertisements—I quote clause 3(1)—
containing an indication (however expressed)
that surrogate arrangements may be sought or may be available seems to me to be unduly harsh and oppressive.
However, I confess to some unease about a legislative strategy which is geared to focusing upon a practice which may well be on the decline, anyway, while at the same time it defers, perhaps for longer than is now being suggested—I did not take too much heart from the reply of the Secretary of State to my question—the real issues which go to the heart of the matter.
It is perhaps significant that surrogate agencies in the United States recently have experienced a marked falling away in their trade. It was reported on 7 January 1985 in The Daily Telegraph that one non-profit-making group in the United States, which claimed at the end of 1982 that it had signed on 400 young women willing to serve as surrogate mothers, is no longer active. It was stated in the same report that in state legislatures right across the United States there is no longer any noticeable pressure to draw up laws to regulate this matter, partly because experience had shown how many things can go wrong, partly because there had been several disputes about paternity which wound up in the courts and partly because costs—amounting not just to £6,500, as in the Baby Cotton case, but to about £20,000, taking account of everything—were proving for many infertile couples to be a prohibitively expensive way to start a family. Britain is not, of course, the United States. However, all this suggests to me that over-reaction to the Baby Cotton case may have been a trifle premature and that there may be an element in the Bill of trying to bar the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Be that as it may—I am no more aware of the full statistics than are the Government—the real weakness of the Bill is that it still leaves unresolved the surrogacy issue. The questions asked by the Secretary of State's hon. Friends demonstrate that fact, and I agree with them. Even if surrogacy is not outlawed, it still leaves open the question whether professional involvement in surrogacy arrangements should be outlawed. If it were to be outlawed, parents would be left in a counselling and advice vacuum. The child could still be placed in a vulnerable position. I suspect that back-street networks would almost inevitably emerge. On the other hand, a doctor in private practice who offered to supply a surrogate and then took a consultation fee could be said to have acted in a way that was very little different from that of a commercial agency.
Having listened to the speech of the Secretary of State, it is disappointing that the Government have given no hint about their own views regarding the involvement of money in the surrogacy relationship. My view is that the involvement of money, other than for reimbursing the carrying mother for the necessary costs of nine months of pregnancy, is in principle undesirable and wrong. That view commands almost universal acceptance. However, the use of surrogacy where money is not involved as an option for the treatment of infertility should not, in my view, be wholly ruled out, although it should be considered only as a final resort.

Mr. John Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: When I have finished this part of my speech.
For example, a woman with functioning ovaries but a damaged womb can achieve children who are genetically hers as well as those of her husband after laparoscopies for ovum recovery, in vitro fertilisation and then embryo transfer to a surrogate. Hon. Members may say that such examples are rare, and I am sure they are, but they seem to offer a significant warning against any law that is designed to suppress surrogate services altogether. I shall now give way.

Mr. Ward: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that in qualifying his approval of the Bill he is not assuming that all of us necessarily want legislation to be introduced for all forms of surrogacy. I believe that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) agrees with me. There are certain issues about which we should legislate only after long consideration and after having listened to all the relevant arguments. Because most of us are prepared to listen to those arguments it is important that this piece of holding legislation should be speedily put on to the statute book. That will give us time to listen to the other arguments to which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) so rightly referred.

Mr. Meacher: I have already said that I am perfectly happy in principle to support the Bill, but the point I am trying to make is that it is not possible logically to disentangle some of these other wider issues. I am worried that this fairly modest measure may result in an unfortunately long period during which these other important issues are digested. That is why I should have preferred there to be one measure only.
I suspect that many people would choose a surrogate child who had a genetic relationship with them or with their partner rather than an adopted child with whom neither they nor their partner had a genetic relationship. Indeed, a minority on the Warnock committee recommended that a charitable body like an adoption society should be permitted to provide well-screened and suitable surrogates for infertile couples, that it should receive no money and that it should pass on only the minimum necessary payments for costs duly incurred by the surrogate.
Unless one adopts — some hon. Members might, judging by their questions — the prior attitude that surrogacy in principle is not to be condoned in any circumstances, even if, in the case of surrogacy for love, it cannot be wholly prevented, in the last analysis I believe that the Warnock minority view is reasonable, deserving


further serious consideration. I am only sorry that on this matter, which is so close to the heart of the Bill, Ministers have been content simply to defer decisions without, in the meantime, giving any sign of their thinking. To say the least, it is regrettable that the Bill, without imposing an outright ban, conduces to amateurish or exploitative do-it-yourself arrangements in a procedure which, if it is to be used at all, should surely be attended by the advantage of full medical, legal and counselling services. But on that, regrettably, Ministers remain silent.

Mrs. McCurley: One thing worries me about the minority view in the Warnock report. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if we were to establish surrogacy, even through clinics in the National Health Service without any money being exchanged, we would still have the problems to which he referred, such as psychological and social problems? As a consequence, there would be additional bureaucracy and social workers, and all the other problems—I am not just getting at social workers, but I am saying that we are building up attendant problems which, frankly, this society can do without.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Lady may not have been getting at social workers, but she made a good fist at it. I do not see the NHS particularly as a bureaucratic organisation or social workers as a hindrance, although no doubt their performance and services could always be improved. However, I personally take the view that what makes surrogacy so distasteful is the pressures that commercialism introduces. In the absence of them, I can see that in a few highly exceptional cases, perhaps as a last resort, and certainly not as a frequent procedure, there may be some correct provision for a surrogate motherhood.
The other yawning gap in the Bill that cries out for attention concerns the vexed issue of legitimacy, which has not been mentioned. Answering questions on his statement on 7 March, the Secretary of State referred to the status of the child—and I agree—as
completely unsatisfactory at the moment."—[Official Report, 7 March 1985; Vol. 74, c. 1189.]
However, it does not seem unsatisfactory enough to prevent the Secretary of State passing by on the other side and postponing the issue indefinitely into the future. I hope that that the Bill will come forward soon, but I wonder.
This issue can and should be grasped sooner rather than later as virtually everyone accepts that, in vitro fertilisation and surrogate children need to have their legal status regularised and recognised. Some movement in the right direction was taken in the Law Commission report in 1982, which recommended that discrimination between legitimate and illegitimate children should be removed, and that children produced by means of artificial insemination by donor should be legitimate when born to a married couple. That is an advance, but it is unsatisfactory because it still leaves in limbo the child born to an unmarried woman or the child rejected by the husband.
Therefore, this might be a better solution. I offer it as a model for consideration. It lies in querying the whole concept of legitimacy in its traditional form and adopting the Warnock suggestion as to social parenthood, coupled with disallowing rights to donors. Parenthood, and parental rights, would then rest with the carrying mother, to be passed on, if appropriate, as at adoption. That

woman would then register the child's birth on her own or with her partner, all parental rights and duties would be vested in those who registered in that way, and any handing over of parental rights subsequent to that could be arranged, as happens now in adoption. All inheritance and other legal rights would then accrue from those parents to the child in the normal way. That is only one model, but I believe that something along those lines is needed and would be a great improvement on the present highly unsatisfactory situation.
For all the reasons that I have given, I do not demur from the single issue underlying the Bill, but I am concerned that the Government have embarked on this brief measure without, as yet — I am sure that the Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong—having thought through at all the implications of several other related issues which, logically, simply cannot be disentangled from the rationale of the Bill. Frankly, the history of short emergency Bills preceding a major and necessary piece of regularising legislation has never been happy in the House. We in the Opposition will do our best in Committee to make changes that improve the Bill. We believe that that needs to be done. However, I fear that in the peculiarly sensitive area of human infertility, the single-issue and disconnected Bill now being introduced may turn out to be no exception to that general rule.

Sir Bernard Braine: In introducing the Bill my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was at pains to say that it has only a limited object—to deal with commercial surrogacy only. The greater detail is to be left to a more comprehensive measure which, as I think I said in my intervention, is hardly likely to become law before the end of next year.
Speaking solely for myself, but probably for many others too, I would say that such a long delay in dealing with a subject that has caused considerable concern in the nation as a whole as well as in the House is not satisfactory and is leaving it for far too long. If the Government can carry the House with them and improve the Bill, well and good. I certainly go along with that. However, I do not approve of their approach. Either the practice of surrogacy is undesirable and antisocial, and carries considerable risks for the children concerned, or it does not—or does not in any substantial measure. If it is undesirable, I feel that it is not possible to accept the argument put before us so far.
The plain fact is that surrogacy is not outlawed in the Bill. I want to know why not. I should have liked to hear my right hon. Friend make the broad case against surrogacy. He did not do so. He left that in the air. He assumes that we understand it already. Perhaps that is correct in the House itself, but I should have thought that the country should be told why surrogacy as such is not being outlawed in this Bill, but will be in some subsequent Bill. Yet money may change hands between surrogate mothers and prospective parents. Surely we should serve notice now that that is not acceptable.
There are other difficulties. For example, my right hon. Friend did not refer to the legal problems surrounding the child of a surrogacy arrangement. Who, in law, is the mother? What safeguards are there for the child? I remember remarking in an earlier debate that clever, intelligent, far-reaching and searching as the Warnock report was, little consideration was given by its authors to


the implications of what was recommended for the child. Therefore, I believe that before the debate is ended something should be said about those matters.
In paragraph 8·18 Warnock proposed that professionals knowingly assisting in surrogacy should be criminally liable. The Bill makes no mention of professional liability. Why not? If there are difficulties we should be told. We should be told that the matter cannot be dealt with now, but we shall most certainly deal with it in future legislation when ever that is brought before the House. Again, in paragraph 8·19, the Warnock report proposes that all surrogacy arrangements should be made illegal and any such contracts would thus be unenforceable in the courts, but the Bill completely ignores that firm proposal. I appreciate my right hon. Friend's argument that serious problems and difficulties arise that could not be dealt with in this Bill but which will certainly be dealt with in a later Bill. This should be spelled out now.
I shall be brief because many of my hon. Friends wish to contribute. Nevertheless, I give notice now that I do not like this method of proceeding and I hope that before we vote on the Bill my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health will answer some of the questions that I have raised. In my view, the matter is so important socially that not only Parliament but the public must be told why, if we cannot have the whole loaf, we must accept a crust at this juncture, knowing full well that a year or 18 months will elapse before the promised comprehensive legislation is introduced. Frankly, that is not good enough.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I do not share the confident predictions of the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) as to how long we shall have to wait for the coming of the great Bill which will roll all the moral issues into one and deal comprehensively with all the problems raised by Warnock and everyone else. I believe that the difficulties have been seriously underestimated. Indeed, Ministers have already hinted that the Bill may take a good deal longer than the right hon. Gentleman suggests. Therefore, those of us who feel strongly about these matters cannot assume that that legislation will be introduced even in this Parliament. Important and urgent matters such as surrogacy and experimentation on human embryos cannot wait for that legislation.
Many of the other issues dealt with in the Warnock report were cases in which advances in medical technology had brought new moral dilemmas which we have not previously had to face. It can scarcely be said, however, that the issue of surrogacy has suddenly landed upon us. In this context, I was amused to read the comments of Nature magazine on the Government's initial reaction and their statement that the Bill was to be introduced. It said:
The British government's guiding principle, well illustrated by last weekend's fuss and what may yet flow from it, is that the general opinion jumps most readily to prohibition when it is taken by surprise.
The country may have been taken a little by surprise at the sheer effrontery of the Baby Cotton case, but surrogacy has certainly not landed upon us as a result of modern technical advances. The issue has been with us for generations. Indeed, it is well developed in the book of Genesis, chapter 16. When Abraham's wife proved unable to have children she said to her husband:

I pray thee, go unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her.
And that is exactly what happened.
The book of Genesis, however, goes on to illustrate the problems that arise from surrogacy. Sarah was soon complaining that her bondservant was getting too proud and looking down on her because she was bearing a child and Sarah was not. Later, when Sarah produced a child of her own, she protested strongly that her son Isaac should not have to share his inheritance with Ishmael, the "bondswoman's son" who had come on to the scene as a result of the earlier surrogacy arrangement. So let us not pretend that the issue is new.

Mr. Greenway: I am impressed by the hon. Gentleman's biblical knowledge, but was not Sarah 99 years old at the time?

Mr. Beith: She was indeed, and it was thus quite reasonable for her to conclude that she was unlikely to produce a natural child thereafter. In fact, of course, she did. People are so often wrong about these things and subsequent events may then give rise to problems. My point is simply that the problems are not new. All that modern technology has done is in certain instances to remove the direct adulterous relationship between the commissioning father and the mother commissioned to carry the child, and even that intervention requires a fairly minimal level of medical technology.
It is true that more openly commercial transactions have recently come to the attention of the public, but such transactions are also not new. One does not have to look very deeply into the recesses of the 19th century to find extensive examples of commercial activity in procuring the birth of children for childless couples.
There is, however, good reason for concern about the possible development of commercial surrogacy agencies and it is right that a measure of this kind should be introduced. I believe that it is widely agreed that there is something morally wrong about the purchase of babies, especially the form that it takes in surrogacy arrangements. Nevertheless, surrogacy is not the only instance in which babies are purchased and legal safeguards are required. For instance, our adoption laws were altered fairly recently in an attempt further to limit the possibility of the purchase of babies. There is also the danger of exploitation of the mothers due to financial pressures. A further danger is that agencies will grow and surrogacy will become more common as a result of the commercial activities of agencies determined to make a living out of the practice.
I shall argue that we should not encourage surrogacy, but I first make this qualification. Whatever we do to try to restrict the practice, even if we were to follow the advice of the right hon. Member for Castle Point and seek to outlaw surrogacy altogether, we shall not be able to prohibit adultery or the arrangement entered into by Abraham to obtain a surrogate child. Artificial insemination by donor will also not be prohibited, although it involves a commercial element in that the donors are paid for their sperm. Despite the many problems that arise from those two forms of activity, it seems unlikely that Parliament will attempt to prohibit them. That situation should serve as a warning to us in deciding what it is reasonable or feasible to do in seeking to prevent surrogacy.
This is very much a personal issue and I do not personally believe that one can reasonably expect to


achieve an effective ban on all kinds of surrogacy. Nevertheless, we should take steps to discourage the spread of such practices, for a number of good reasons. Those reasons, however, relate to the very issues that the Government felt unable to tackle and thus left out of the Bill. I realise why it was necessary to introduce a limited measure, but I believe that some of the problems left unresolved may continue to cause great difficulties and that not all of them need have been excluded from the Bill.
I shall not add to what has been said about the problems of legitimacy and I recognise that that subject is too wide for the scope of the Bill. There is, however, the somewhat narrower question of who is the legal mother of a child produced under a surrogacy arrangement and the application of general adoption law in this context. The law rightly makes certain provisions to protect the mother of a child which might be adopted from being subjected to great pressure at the time of adoption, providing for a breathing space or cooling-off period before a final decision can be made. The application of that law to surrogacy cases must be considered. We need more guidance from the Government on that subject.
Other aspects of adoption law are also relevant. There is the right of an adopted child, at the age of 18, to discover the identity of its natural mother. Parliament gave adopted children that right a few years ago. What would be the position of a surrogate child? I assume that it, too, would enjoy the right to learn the identity of its natural mother when it had reached the age of maturity. Surrogate mothers may not have realised that that would be so when they agreed to undertake surrogacy.

Mrs. McCurleyMr. Beith: I am sure that there can be just such an effect. I am not sure that one can make an absolute qualitative distinction between the circumstances, but there are important factors to be borne in mind when we compare what happens to an adopted child under present arrangements and what would happen to a surrogate child. Children are normally adopted through an adoption agency which will counsel the parents to advise the child, from the earliest possible age, of the nature of its adoption. The adoption society would encourage the parents to make sure that the child understood from an early age that it had been adopted, and why. What advice would be given, and by whom, to people taking into their family a child borne by surrogacy? Would they be advised to tell the child, at the earliest possible age, of the circumstances? It is difficult to predict what the emotional outcome of that would be. That is an area of real difficulty.
When the Secretary of State made his initial statement to the House, I questioned him about another point. The Warnock committee recommended that surrogacy contracts should not be enforceable by law. The Secretary of State seemed to take the view that the law as it stood was quite clear and that no such contract—a contract to hand over the baby, or the money — would be

enforceable in the courts. If the right hon. Gentleman has any doubts on that point, some provision should be included in the Bill. If he is wholly satisfied that the law provides no opportunity for enforcing contracts between the mother, the agency and the prospective parents, he should say so.
What is to be the fate of the children involved? That is the test that we must apply. I fear for the position of children born in this way, and that is why I believe that Parliament must make it clear that there are many dangers attached to the practice of surrogacy, and that many problems will be stored up for the children. We must make that clear even to people who are looking for a reasonable way of dealing with the problem of childlessness—to people who want to offer a home to a child and who may well have the emotional and material resources to give a child a good home and so to contribute to society. Like the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) I feel that there might be circumstances in which someone could persuade me that it was reasonable for such a couple to resort to surrogacy. I therefore do not agree with those who want a complete ban on surrogacy. However, I believe that such a couple should be left in no doubt about the dangers and the problems that they may face, just as those of us who adopt children know that serious problems and potential difficulties are involved.

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Gentleman refers to the effect upon the children. That is an extremely important point. The House needs to know what medical and psychiatric evidence has been given by people eminent in their field — some individual hon. Members have received such evidence—about the likely effects on a child who in later years demands the right to hear how it was born and who its real mother was. The effect upon a child must be incalculable, and the cost to the community is likely to be considerable.
Experts have already expressed views on the subject. Is not the House entitled to know what advice has been given to the Government on that point, following the Warnock report, and why there is no provision on that score in the Bill?

Mr. Beith: I hope that Ministers will be as frank as they can with all the information at their disposal. However, many circumstances of birth cause problems in later life, and surrogacy is only one of them. It would be dangerous to single out surrogate birth and to claim that anyone who finds out that he was born in this way will be uniquely liable to great emotional trauma in later life. Many circumstances of birth can cause psychological difficulties in later life.
As surrogacy is voluntarily and deliberately entered upon, those who resort to it should be given the clearest possible warning about future problems. They should be warned through the general attitude of the law. The attitude of Parliament and of the law towards a form of conduct considerably affects the attitude of citizens. There is no doubt that since the law on abortion was changed, public attitudes to abortion have been influenced in some measure. The law prevents certain categories of people from marrying each other because Parliament, over the years, has taken the view that some forms of marriage —for example, marriage between stepchild and stepparent—could, if they became at all widespread, pose a


real danger for similar families. In many areas, the law on a matter seeks to exercise an influence wider than its basic provisions. This Bill should do so.
If Parliament did nothing at this stage, it might be assumed that surrogacy carried the blessing of the House and of informed opinion, when in fact it carries so many dangers that it should not be given that degree of encouragement. That is another reason for taking legislative steps, which are in any case justified, to prevent commercial surrogacy. We must examine the Bill in Committee to see whether it achieves that objective, and whether it does so without paying too high a price in some other directions. There are, for example, the legal aspects to which the hon. Member for Oldham, West referred and about which there has been some press comment. There are the questions of the burden of proof and of jury trial. However, the House should certainly make it clear that surrogacy brings with it serious problems and that the dangers attached to commercial operations in this field are so great that we should not permit them.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: It is right and proper for me to offer my warmest congratulations to the Secretary of State for bringing the Bill before the House, about 15 months since I introduced precisely such a measure. I was then careful to be very circumspect in my approach to the problem. I welcome the Government's sympathetic response not just in producing a Bill but in acknowledging the fact that grave difficulties surround the whole issue of surrogacy, not just its commercial aspects.
It is heart-warming to welcome a Bill that has had so much public response and support. The Government are to be congratulated on acting swiftly, especially following the Baby Cotton case. I am glad that the sale of children is to be banned, for that is what the Bill is about. I am also glad that the Government are considering the primary individual involved—the child. However, it is important to remember the surrogate mother. In the past few months I have had the opportunity to examine the conditions under which women become surrogates. I am ever more convinced that the attraction of the financial element is paramount—well and away above any of the altruism that might be talked about in press revelations.
As the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said, we were expecting poor women to be exploited for the obvious desires of rich women. I am pleased that the activities of the Redhill clinic have now ceased. I have investigated the hard commercialism of that enterprise and its links with the United States and the fact that its activities have been abandoned shows the strength of the Bill.
Commercial surrogacy has been successful in the United States. We all admire many parts of the United States ethos, but we do not always try to emulate them. Although it is said that the morality of the United States reaches us in 10 or 20 years' time, I am glad that we have not waited that long this time and that we have taken a firm and British stand.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) identified an important problem concerning the identity of children and problems that are left with the surrogate's family—a matter that has not been discussed much here. Women who have taken on the job of bearing children for others go home without a baby and discover

that their children feel a strange sense of bereavement because no child has been taken home. Occasionally, even a husband who has consented to the arrangement feels revulsion in his relationship with his wife. That causes deep problems in the existing family.
We are sympathetic to infertile couples but do not finance consultations for them properly. However, we must not pile more problems in society on to ourselves. We have enough family problems. The hon. Member for Oldham, West rather resented my reference to social workers, but their existence shows that there are problems enough. We shall only add to those problems if we accept surrogacy. I do not think that it will go underground if we ban commercial surrogacy. Between 6 per cent. and 10 per cent. of women of childbearing age are infertile—the figures vary from consultant to consultant and scientist to scientist — and less than 1 per cent. of them would benefit from surrogacy. The scale is small.
I should like all aspects of surrogacy to be banned, but I accept what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said. In the highlands of Scotland, sisters have frequently made surrogacy arrangements. We must ask ourselves whether we want to interfere with and criminalise informal family arrangements. Such interference worries me. Although I do not want surrogacy to exist as a trade, it would be invidious to interfere too far with family life. The medical profession would be grateful for clarification. I should like my right hon. Friend to consider other legislation as quickly as possible to deal with other aspects of surrogacy.
Many biblical quotations have been thrown about in connection with the question, "Who is the mother?" The judgment of Solomon in the dispute between the two women springs immediately to mind. Solomon the wise suggested that the child be split in two, half being given to each woman. The real mother gave up the child for the love of it. The story tells us much about motherhood. The mother who gives birth to the child must be the legal mother, irrespective of what the law might say.
I hope that the Bill goes through Committee speedily and that there will be consensus on the banning of commercial surrogacy. I hope that there will also be consensus on matters that cannot be seen in such hard and fast terms.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The Bill is welcome to the extent that it attempts to deal with commercial agencies that profiteer from surrogacy. Unfortunately, it has been constructed in haste, primarily in response to the furore created in the recent and much publicised case of Baby Cotton. The sensationalism generated by the media and some hon. Members has influenced the Bill to its detriment.
There is a fundamental flaw in banning commercial surrogacy while allowing men to continue to buy private surrogacy arrangements without any legal safeguards. This can only result in more highly publicised baby wrangles, which could lead to Parliament banning surrogacy altogether. In these circumstances we should consider at length the full medical, legal and counselling services that Parliament needs to approve so that surrogacy can be properly regulated.
Despite Fleet Street's unhealthy obsession with what the newspaper headlines proclaimed as "Britain's first surrogate baby", the media were, as is often the case, quite


wrong. Surrogacy did not begin with Baby Cotton—only a media interest and hysteria in the wake of the Warnock report.
Infertility has been an unhappily common problem for many families throughout the ages. Some of those families chose to deal with the problem by making private arrangements which actually amounted to what is now called surrogacy, without the matter being known outside the family circle. The drawbacks to these informal measures are myriad and have in their time brought strain and divisions within family relations. That is what the Warnock report was referring to when it said that public opinion was against surrogacy because
it could drive a wedge between a previously loving partnership".
This view fails to take account of the way in which modern medical technology and carefully considered legislation could overcome some of the drawbacks previously associated with surrogacy.
Fertilisation in surrogacy arrangements is no longer reliant on an intimate relationship, and the surrogate mother now conceives as a result of medical technique. The outcome of the pregnancy is a wanted baby for an unknown couple in circumstances similar to adoption. Therefore, the issues for me are not "if' we should use this new technology to fulfil the desires of men and women to have children, but how we avoid replacing the old drawbacks with ones that are new and even more dangerous and damaging. This the Bill has failed to do, by limiting itself only to one of the unfavourable aspects to be dealt with.
It is the duty of Parliament to legislate against the exploitative nature of commercial agencies which see women primarily as objects of profit. Hence, women's rights to control their bodies and fertility are cast aside and trampled on. Unhappily, while we live in a society that falls over itself to make a quick profit at the expense of the general good, medical knowledge will inevitably be misused by capitalist gangsterism. The director of the commercial surrogacy agency in Surrey has been quoted as saying that the company would like to become the Coca-Cola of the surrogate industry—in other words, a big profit industry like any other multinational, with no loyalties or commitment to prevent the expansion of its worldwide exploitative practices. I support provisions in the Bill to prevent Britain becoming a shareholder in this unsavoury global enterprise.
As a Socialist, it appears to me that any form of surrogacy cemented with large amounts of money perpetuates unequal capitalist relations between different social classes and men and women in new, insidious ways. In my view, the Bill fails to deal with this.
The media focus which has highlighted the financial gain made by the surrogate mother fails to mention that only a very small proportion of the money pocketed by the agency is paid to her. She is not paid to undergo twice-monthly artificial insemination, nor if she fails to conceive after six months of these medical ordeals. She is not paid to abstain from sexual relations with her partner, even though she must agree to this provision while conception and pregnancy are under way. She is not paid during pregnancy to ensure that she and the foetus enjoy optimum care, nor if she has a miscarriage. She is most definitely not paid should the baby be born with any handicap. Her

only modest payment in this highly lucrative enterprise is on handing over a perfect specimen of a newborn baby. In my view, she is grossly underpaid, and the Bill must be criticised for neglecting to protect surrogate mothers' interests in any future private deals.
The ability of the donor father to pay large amounts of money confers immense power on him. As a result, a grossly unequal bond exists between him, the surrogate mother and his partner. As he has paid for the services of the surrogate mother, he is given personal details about her appearance, the colour of her hair and eyes, height, social class and the town where she lives. If he finds any of these details disagreeable, he can choose another woman. On the other hand, she knows nothing about him except his obvious financial clout. Such voyeuristic relations are not uncommon in Soho, but are usually condemned as deeply exploitative and insulting to women. There is an urgent need to legislate against these unequal arrangements based on immoral notions of men and women.
The power that the donor father's money carries is nowhere more cruelly emphasised than in the role allowed his partner. While making the preparations for the changes in her life when she will become the legal mother of her husband's baby, she is totally excluded from the rights he enjoys. He is kept in touch with the pregnancy by telephone, written progress reports and tapes of the foetal heartbeat, but whether he decides to share these with his partner is up to him alone. That is strange in a society such as ours, which stresses the importance of the role of parent for women. In the family, and in education, work and law, the primacy of the woman's role as chief caretaker of children is reinforced.
Equal rights legislation has hardly dented the unequal relations that working women experience when trying to combine successfully the roles of wage earner and mother, yet when the donor father reaches for his cheque book, his partner's rights as the prospective mother of a baby which she is most likely to nurture to adulthood are erased. The Bill fails to ensure her equal status with her partner during the entire surrogacy processes until the baby becomes legally hers.
For me the crucial issues do not centre on banning new medical technology which can help women and men to have wanted children. Rather, I seek to ensure the equal rights of those concerned when a woman agrees to carry a child for other parents so that surrogacy is free from commercial exploitation as well as from control by men with money. That is not to say that no payment should be involved. Consideration should have been given to the ways in which a surrogate mother could be paid by the state, just as maternity allowances and child benefit are paid. A small weekly allowance could be paid at the time of artificial insemination, increasing substantially as the pregnancy is confirmed and progresses. Setting these amounts would be complex, but for Socialists used to complicated pay negotiations, that should not prove too difficult. I believe that this issue must be tackled in a Socialist way so that people seeking these measures are not barred through lack of money or driven into becoming permanent surrogate mothers through financial desperation, just as in America financial considerations have caused people to become blood donors. As we have seen, there is very little evidence of personal care and concern in commercial or private arrangements, and these must be high priorities in the future.
I advocate a limited role for the state in surrogacy. Sadly, many of the welfare aspects of the state have in the past been experienced in a most repressive way by the very people whom we are seeking to help. The practical arrangements could be set up via a national network which is distinct from conventional hospital consultancies. That would save money on high salaries which would be better spent on financing local advice and technology through a network of well woman clinics, counselling services and general practice. Carefully considered, decentralised local provisions would then protect the personal needs of people closely, and transform innovative medical technology into caring national health services.

5 pm

Mr. John Butterfill: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the speed and decisiveness with which he has introduced this measure. Unlike the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), I do not criticise him for reacting to public opinion, because it is most important that the Government should react speedily to it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to criticise the Government if they did not react to public opinion.
I am not entirely happy with the measure. I welcome what the Government have done, but they have not gone far enough. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) that we should not bring into the scope of the law arrangements which are made within families and which have historically been made within families. However, when matters go outside the family, we have a duty to be interested and to ensure that what is done is for the good of those involved, especially of the child.
We legislate, rightly, for adoption and require that restrictive and stringent procedures are followed. In this case, we seem to take the view that that will not be necessary. That is wrong. The hon. Member for Oldham, West suggested that we might be protecting the surrogate mother from exploitation, but I do not think that the Bill does that. The Bill does not seek to outlaw any payment made to a surrogate mother, so she is equally susceptible to exploitation whether from a commercial or other form of agency.
The Bill's weakness is that it will permit surrogacy to be arranged by local authorities, local health authorities and charities set up for that purpose. Some of those organisations may not be what hon. Members would regard as charities. They may be covers for organisations which make substantial payments to employees and which are funded by all sorts of curious methods. Donations to such charities may not count as payments for the purpose of this legislation. Therefore, there is a grave danger in proceeding in this way. Unscrupulous people could drive a coach and horses through the legislation as it stands.
The only way to overcome the problem is to outlaw the procurement of surrogacy by a third person. That would still permit direct surrogacy arrangements between individuals. If we outlaw all procurement, we shall minimise the risk of exploitation as far as possible within the scope of legislation that could be reasonably enforced by the police. The Bill should be amended to achieve that. We would then protect mothers, and ensure the best possible family arrangements for the child.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: On 7 March, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced to the House that the Bill would be prepared, I was attending the christening of the younger child of my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet). I thought that I was doing my bit to encourage childbirth by celebrating the birth of a child. It is a great asset to have children. It is not a right, but a bonus.
I welcome the Bill because it will cut out one of the most immoral practices that has ever occurred —commercial surrogacy. I remember when news of Baby Cotton was leaked, the furore that any mother would rent out her womb to make some money, and allow her child to shoot off to America. I congratulate my right hon. Friend sincerely on introducing the Bill. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) who has been campaigning and championing this cause, even before Baby Cotton appeared on the scene.
For many months, medical journals have expressed great anxiety about surrogate motherhood. When we debated the Warnock report, I was fortunate enough to be called and to put on record how I considered the position of a surrogate child. I considered it an oddity, although it was a scientific marvel.
The Bill w ill stop money changing hands. However, like nin hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth., West (Mr. Buttertill), I am anxious about the charitable aspect, in that a charity could be set up and a surrogate mother paid many years after the birth. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider that point when he replies. Payment, no matter how much or when it is made, should not be tolerated.
I am particularly worried about the other three surrogate children who are due shortly. Unlike the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), I believe that the Government acted quickly because they had to. The legislation has not been rushed, but it is both sensible and sound. It has been introduced speedily because we knew of those three children and of the potential for further children being born in that way in America and elsewhere. We need to eradicate commercial surrogacy.
The practice is sick, as is any sort of womb leasing. I can understand that some women may be terribly hard up. For the first time in my life I agree with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that women in poor income brackets may be easily tempted, not merely because they wish to buy a car but because they need money to survive. The financial gain was a serious temptation. Although I sympathise with those who were tempted down that indelicate route, I hope that the Bill will deter people from so doing in future.
Clause 2 adequately covers the full role of commercial surrogacy and particular practices. I understand the past system in Scotland, and the fact that many arrangements have been carried out within a family where one sister has had difficulty in bearing a child. When I criticised surrogate motherhood, I received a letter from a constituent who said that the first surrogate mother was the Virgin Mary. I do not know about that, but the practice continues.
I admire much that is done in America. It is a great innovator, but surrogate motherhood is one type of


experiment that need never have arrived on our shores. I hope that one day we shall do away with surrogacy altogether. I hope that an opportunity to achieve that may arise with the follow-up to the Warnock report. I fully appreciate, however, that that will be some time in the future and that that would be a tremendous commitment for my right hon. and learned Friend to give the House today. But at least the Government have given some commitment and have encouraged motherhood within the family and within normal practices.
I ask the Secretary of State to consider the implications of deferred payments by charities. There is a definite risk that, perhaps six years later, a payment could be made to the surrogate mother. I welcome the offences created by the Bill, and the imprisonment terms and fines that it provides, which are realistic and which will act as a suitable deterrent. I should be interested to know when the legislation will be enacted, although I appreciate that it must go through further stages in the House and in another place.
Like the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I believe that we should make provisions so that a child can find out the identity of his mother. Certainly all children at the age of 18 should be allowed to discover the identity of their natural mothers. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health will set out out the Government's thinking on that.
I am also a little worried about the woman who agrees, whether there is a contract or not, to carry a child and who, for nine months, is clearly pregnant. She may have other children at home, and I am worried about their reaction when she goes into hospital but then returns without a child. We must think carefully about how that will affect the other children. Will they be told exactly what happened? They may think that the child has died. They may have been extremely excited, looking forward to having a baby brother or sister. I am worried about the psychological problems that could be caused.
Today the Government have shown how much they care about children and childbirth. They have put the interests of the child above everything else. As I said earlier, it is a great privilege for anyone to have children. In my family, we are still waiting, but we shall be patient and carry on in the normal way. I welcome the Bill because it acts as a warning to prospective surrogate mothers that they must not succumb to the temptation of material and financial gain. I also welcome it because it will prohibit surrogacy agencies. I hope that American magazines will no longer advertise those agencies in Britain, which will prevent people from going to America and making such financial arrangements there.
This is a good Bill that will preserve family life, stabilise society and do away with this unnatural and unfortunate practice which has sickened so many decent-living and family-loving people. For that reason alone, I welcome the Bill.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Although I cannot follow the line of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), I hope that he and his wife will have the joy of parenthood before very long. We are

all delighted to hear that they intend to pursue normality. As the father of three wonderful children, I can testify to the joys of parenthood.
I, too, welcome the Bill, but I regard it as only a small first step in a most important area. Hon. Members have mentioned the position of childless couples, and rightly so. Athough the welfare of the child must come above all things—I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and most hon. Members who have spoken agree with that — the position of childless couples is also central to the issue. We must think carefully about childless couples who are anxious to have children by adoption or by other means, and I believe that the country has a sympathetic view of their problems.
Everyone who has had the privilege and honour of having a child must sympathise deeply with couples who are happy in their marriage and devoted to each other but who have not been blessed with the joy of children. Their position is central in the area to which the Bill relates. Will their needs be met more by individual surrogacy than hitherto? The answer is probably yes, but we must consider the morality of that.
I know from my long experience of and interest in children for adoption that there is an enormous shortage of such children, largely because of the consequences of the Abortion Act 1967. The present abortion rate—there have been more than 2 million since 1967—combined with more efficient birth control methods has meant that far fewer children are available for adoption. Therefore, not a council in the land, nor an agency dealing with the adoption of children, does not have an enormous waiting list of impressive couples who wish to adopt children but who are, for the most part, frustrated in that wish. The reduction in the number of children available, because of abortion and improved pregnancy prevention, may mean that couples will be tempted to seek surrogate mothers. However, I am glad to know that they will not be able to do so through agencies which wish to exploit them for gain.
The other day I read about an American agency which published somewhat grotesque advertising material for the services of surrogate mothers that it was offering at considerable expense to childless couples. It said, for example, that its women were better looking than many others, that they were tested for the quality of their health and tested for the quality of their brains. That is a terribly crude way of approaching the matter and is a great indignity to women. Few hon. Members would support such approaches, and I would certainly not be one of them.
The Bill will mean that we shall not have such advertising in Britain, and for that I am grateful. However, as I said in the first intervention in the debate, I am worried that some women will be tempted to exploit themselves as individuals. They will be tempted to offer themselves as surrogate mothers because they may need the money, or believe that they need money, for many things. The lady who acted as a surrogate mother for Baby Cotton said that she needed the £8,000 for a new three-piece suite, or something like that—

Mrs. McCurley: For an extension to her house.

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend is right. Everyone could find a use for some extra money that might come his or her way. I fear—I believe that the House will share my fear—that some women will be tempted to exploit


themselves because they feel the need for new furniture, an extension to their homes, clothes or things for their existing children. Sadly, the Bill does not protect individual women against such self-exploitation, although it prevents their exploitation by an agency and, therefore, by society. It is a very doubtful moral proposition for a woman to be asked to carry a baby for financial gain. I am sorry that we have not heard the churches speaking out on that issue and giving a moral lead throughout the nation—

Mrs. McCurley: They have.

Mr. Greenway: I cannot accept what my hon. Friend says. They have not given the moral lead that would hit the headlines.
We must consider the delicate position of children born through individual surrogacy, which will be permitted by the Bill. Should they be told that they were born to surrogate mothers? What will be the effects of that knowledge? What will happen if they are not told about their background and the fact that their surrogate mothers may or may not have been paid for the job, to put it crudely?
Will those children be in the same position as adopted children who are rightly told about their adoption? There was a time when adopted children were not told about their background. There are many people in this country who were adopted from the cradle but who do not know that. Indeed, their adoptive parent may have forgotten that fact. What moral lesson should we learn from that which we can apply to a child born to a surrogate mother?
Who should be responsible for counselling couples seeking a child by surrogacy? Will it be the local council, the National Health Service local board, the local churches, a charity or the neighbours? Who will counsel the surrogate mothers? When the Bill is in Committee, it will need to be considered in some depth and the very important personal and moral points will need to be borne in mind.
I welcome the Government's leadership on this matter. However, if we do not bear in mind the personal and moral points the House may be guilty of producing a Bill that will rightly outlaw the hell and wickedness that exists in America—where women are exploited and handled in an undignified manner for gain—but at the same time forget that individual women are not covered, whether or not they are acting on their own behalf, in response to social or financial pressures or even in response to pressure from husbands who may see surrogacy as a way to make money. That whole area needs to be carefully considered. I hope that when my right hon. and learned Friend replies he will comment on the points that I have raised.

Mr. David Amess: I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) for not having been present during their speeches. I was visiting a sewage works in my constituency in an attempt to ensure that the smells coming from the works will be more pleasant throughout the summer.
I join other hon. Members in wishing my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) and his wife every success in being blessed with a child. I wish gently to take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for

Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who made one or two comments about the churches. I understand that my church —the Catholic church—the Council of Churches and the Church of Scotland have spoken out strongly against the whole concept of commercial surrogacy. The problem is that they have not received publicity. It is unfortunate that one or two members of the churches receive a great deal of publicity for the rather silly things they say—

Mr. Greenway: I accept what my hon. Friend says. I said that some churches have not spoken out strongly, but I accept that some have done so. They have not received the publicity that they should have received, so my hon. Friend has made a fair comment.

Mr. Amess: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments.
Those of us who are parents speak from a privileged position. We have been blessed and entrusted with the responsibility of parenthood, and with that the agony and ecstasy of bringing up children. We are unable completely to appreciate the anguish felt by many couples who cannot bear children. My support last year for the ten-minute rule Bill to outlaw surrogacy, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley), resulted in my learning at first hand of a number of distressing cases of couples unable to bear children. Their despair cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be over-estimated. Quite naturally, they are sometimes prepared to go to any length to have a child.
Although the House recognises that, it still has a responsibility and an obligation to uphold the sanctity of life and to outlaw the practice of surrogacy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), a former Prime Minister, once referred to the unacceptable face of capitalism. That phrase achieves its ultimate meaning in the buying and selling of a human being, which is a most degrading concept.
I am delighted that the Government, inspired and prompted by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde, have introduced the Bill. It is crucial for the protection of family life. My concern for the family, and especially for children, begins from the moment a child is conceived. At that very moment of conception, a new individual is created. Hon. Members know that I strongly oppose all procedures that harm unborn children from the time of their creation. The welfare of the child at every stage of his or her development must be the first consideration. Therefore, it would be quite inconsistent not to oppose surrogate motherhood, which is a further erosion of family life with unknown emotional and psychological consequences for the child.
If commercial surrogacy were allowed, it is inevitable that we should create a class of woman who would he seen simply as breeding machines. It is doubtful that such women, attracted by the lure of money, would be aware of and able to cope with the inherent difficulties that stem from surrogacy. The results would be pitiful. The words of an Australian mother, who found herself unable to hand over the baby she bore for another woman, sum up the whole issue and that unnatural situation:
It goes against every physical and emotional feeling. The only thing the stand-in mother can get out of it is money but no amount can compensate for what you have done.
It is impossible to consider childbearing in a detached and clinical fashion. While throughout the nine months of pregnancy the unborn child is linked to the mother in the


most intimate way, he or she is a completely separate individual growing within the womb. The mother acts as a source of protection, providing nutrition for the child she is bearing. The mother's body adapts through hormonal changes to accommodate the new being that lies within her. It is entirely unnatural for a woman to suppress the maternal instincts that she no doubt feels.
When a child is born, he or she is not an anonymous being. The baby has been alive for nine months and has had those months of experience in the womb. The mother will have felt the baby moving and responding in various ways. The baby cannot be treated as a commodity, to be ordered and delivered. Nor should women be treated like manufacturers whose sole purpose is to come up with the goods.
The unpredictable human factor is at its highest in surrogacy, and no woman can know how she will react on being requested to hand over the child whom she has carried for nine months. Commercial surrogacy is repugnant in its view of human beings as objects that can be bought and sold.
I found totally unacceptable the Warnock recommendation that human embryos might be bought and sold under licence. I cannot differentiate between a human embryo and a newborn baby; they are both human beings at different stages of development. It would therefore be inconsistent if I did not condemn surrogacy, which reduces human beings to saleable commodities.
A distinction, however, must be made between surrogate motherhood and adoption. In the latter, a woman takes over the care of an existing child, a child born to his or her genetic mother. That is different from deliberately creating a child in a planned way which introduces unnecessary social confusion for the child. An adopted child is in no doubt of his genetic and social origins. He can clearly define his place in society.
A child produced to order by another woman is caught between the woman who carried him for nine months and who is his genetic mother, the father who is not married to, or is in no way involved with, the genetic mother, and the woman who will bring him up and whom he will address as "mother", a title which she has bought.
The present law leaves the father who provided the sperm without parental rights because the child is illegitimate. He could adopt the child and claim parental rights, but that would be illegal because of the fees paid to the agency and to the surrogate mother. For a child to enter the world amid a scene of emotional, social and legal chaos is completely wrong, and commercial surrogacy must be stopped to prevent that happening.
I am delighted to say that, by introducing the Bill, the Government are at long last following the flow of public opinion on this issue. There can be no doubt that the gut reaction of the public is against commercial surrogacy and the whole concept of surrogate motherhood.
Among the harshest critics of surrogacy is the National Association for the Childless. Brenda Halliday of that organisation has described surrogacy as "exploitation at its worst". If this idea of commercial surrogacy has travelled across the Atlantic, it can return whence it came.
While I and many others were surprised and disappointed at the Government's neutral stance on the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill, this legislation will serve to uphold the dignity of women and children. It goes

to the heart of my overall belief that the interests and wellbeing of the child at every stage of development should come first and that women should not be degraded in any way.

Ms. Jo Richardson: This has been an interesting wide-ranging debate, made all the more interesting by the intimate atmosphere, as it were, in which it has been conducted. Because few hon. Members have been in the Chamber, we have been able to listen closely to what has been said, and even, in some instances, to what hon. Members have been thinking, as exemplified by some of the spontaneous interruptions.
The contributions to the debate have covered the full spectrum of the subject. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) welcomed the Bill, as I do, because of the nastiness—that is not too severe a word to use for the profit-making element of surrogacy —of the whole problem. However, we take the view that surrogacy should not necessarily be outlawed. We want time to consider, sensitively and slowly, all the implications.
At the other end of the scale, we had the speech of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), who is antiabortion in every respect and is anxious that the protection of the law should be given to the embryo from day one, with surrogacy being completely outlawed. I hope that the Government will adopt a steady-as-she-goes attitude and will retain the central point of the Bill, which is to keep the legislation narrowly to the framework of outlawing commercial surrogacy, so giving us time to consider all the other problems that are involved.
Surrogacy is after all, only one part of the whole problem of infertility, and most hon. Members acknowledge that infertility is a real problem. If we say that surrogacy must be legislated against because it is wholly wrong, we shall inevitably cast some parents into a form of limbo from which they will not be able to benefit in any way, for example from any other form of infertility treatment.
We should pay attention, and give more funding, to the whole question of infertility. Simply to say that surrogacy is wrong and must be legislated against will not do. First, such legislation would not work and, secondly, even if it could be made to work, it would be undesirable. A better way to deal with the problem is to reduce the necessity, in the view of some people, to resort to surrogacy. I am glad, therefore, that the Bill is confined to the profit-making and commercial aspects of the problem.
As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) pointed out descriptively, surrogacy has existed throughout history. For us now solemnly to think that we can stop it would be like trying unrealistically to turn the tide. Indeed, for us to attempt to do that might have some adverse effects. For example, it might send the practice underground, and that might result in more surrogate mothers and commissioning parents going elsewhere, perhaps across the Atlantic, to achieve their heart's wish. We would not want to do that.
I hope to be a member of the Standing Committee which will examine the Bill. That will be the occasion to discuss certain matters in detail. However, it is important for us now to cast a critical eye over some points which have occurred to hon. Members.
I firmly reject the notion of allowing profiteers to prosper. However, there is a necessity for some legal arrangement between a commissioning couple and a host mother. I cannot see any moral or legal problem about employing the services of a solicitor. I understand that there are agencies in the United States of a sort that we do not like which claim that they are merely tying up the legal ends. I do not believe that. I believe that they are involved for the money. If they are handling the legal part of the arrangement, that is the least that they can do for the money that they are making out of the arrangement.
When families are faced with problems the individuals concerned will consult a solicitor. When surrogacy is proposed, why cannot the commissioning couple and the host mother say to a solicitor, "We want to come to an arrangement between the three of us that will protect the rights of the couple, the rights of the host mother and the rights of the child?" Why cannot a legal agreement be drawn up that will have that effect? We use solicitors when a divorce is sought. When a woman is beaten up at home, she will go to a solicitor to obtain an injunction against her battering husband. She is not shunned by society and treated with disdain because she has put money into the hands of a solicitor by instructing him to obtain an injunction. Surely a legal contract could be drawn up to protect the rights of the commissioning couple and the host mother without causing the solicitor to commit a criminal offence under the Bill?
It is crucial that both the commissioning couple and the prospective host mother receive some counselling. If we were to outlaw surrogacy, we would make it impossible for any counselling to take place. The couple will have discussed the matter between themselves, and possibly with relatives, and they should have the opportunity to discuss the matter with expert counsellors so that they are sure that they are doing the right thing and that they know how to go about it.
More importantly, it is crucial that the host mother should have the opportunity to receive counselling. She, too, will have problems. It should not be said that she is merely in it for the money or that she is an exploited person. Many reasons lead a woman to take this course, some of which we may never know or understand. The host mother should have the opportunity through the local authority, a non-profit making body or a social work agency to receive proper counselling.
As I read the Bill, a solicitor who drew up a legal document to protect the commissioning couple and the host mother, or a person who counselled them, would be caught by its provisions. A doctor, for example, might be asked to give some medical advice to the host mother and he may receive a fee from a non-profit-making agency for doing so. Will he be caught by the Bill?
There are many loopholes which could be dangerous and I ask the Minister to let us know where we stand when he replies. If he agrees that there are some loopholes, we can try to close them and ensure that there is proper surrogacy prior to the Government introducing the wider Bill which they have promised, which will appear much later. I remain concerned about doctors and counsellors, for example, who will receive fees for their services.
It seems that in this instance we are moving away from the principle of trial by jury. This issue was raised on the "Agenda" page of The Guardian this morning. As I am not a lawyer, the point had not struck me, but I believe now that it is one worthy of consideration. The Bill provides

a maximum of three months imprisonment or a fine of £2,000, which are penalties which do not enable the person accused to opt for trial by jury. I understand that there has to be the possibility of a sentence of imprisonment of six months before one can seek trial by jury.
Those who are accused of having committed an offence within the terms of the Bill might very well want trial by jury so that ordinary men and women can listen to their story, whether they are the individuals involved or those concerned indirectly. I am not suggesting that the maximum penalty of three months imprisonment should be increased, but we must consider the option of trial by jury if the accused wishes to have that sort of hearing
I have expressed some reservations about the wording and intent of some parts of the Bill, but I reiterate that I am in favour of it. Bearing in mind the agreement that there appears to be on both sides of the House, I shall be surprised if there is a Division.
I am left wondering whether the Bill would have been produced if it had not been for the distasteful publicity which surrounded the Cotton case and the natural public reaction to it. Surrogacy has been taking place for a long time but it is only since 1982 or 1983 that it has become a known word to the ordinary public. Suddenly, and perhaps because of one unpleasant and distasteful case, at least in the United Kingdom, people have gone beserk, as it were, about it. If that case had not arisen, would the Government have introduced the Bill?
I look forward to reading the wider Bill that the Government intend to produce in due course that will incorporate many of the recommendations of the Warnock committee.
Surrogacy appears to be a necessity, or an option, for some infertile couples. It is crucial that commissioning couples and host mothers should be afforded some form of legality and should not be made to feel that they are outcasts of society. I was appalled when the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) said that surrogacy was a sick practice. If I had heard him say that as one of an infertile couple or as a host mother, I would have felt cast down. Surrogacy may not be a practice in which we all want to indulge, but it should be afforded some respect. If three people have thought about the matter deeply and have decided that that is the way in which they want to proceed because there is no option, they should not be rejected by society.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: The hon. Lady should have put my comment in the right context. I said that I considered surrogacy to be a sick practice when money was involved. When that happens, I find it repulsive. Surely the hon. Lady will agree that a financial transaction to secure the lease of a woman's womb is repugnant.

Ms. Richardson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look at his speech tomorrow to ascertain whether it reads in that way. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech. He rightly referred to the profit-making angle. My impression was, however, that he thought that surrogacy was a distasteful practice. I want to ensure that, after the passage of this Bill, we treat surrogacy with sensitivity and give time not only to the Government, without pressurising them to draft the legislation properly, but to hon. Members so that all the implications are considered and so that we do not deal piecemeal with a subject of great concern to a large number of people.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): At various times the Government have been praised for the speed with which they have brought forward the Bill—my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) praised us—and at other times criticised. A considerable number of points have been raised about the circumstances in which the Bill has been brought forward and about whether it has been wise to select this one narrow aspect of the huge combination of difficult ethical and moral issues that were addressed in the Warnock report. I am glad that, despite all the reservations about the legislation, every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has revealed that he or she comes down on the side of the Bill and is likely to support it.
This is not a new issue, and the Government have not approached it with unnecessary or reckless speed. We have acted decisively and in a way that commands the support of the majority of the public, without prejudicing what the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) has rightly said needs to be a thorough and well-digested debate on many important and complex matters before an even larger Bill comes forward.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) took all prizes for biblical scholarship by reminding hon. Members in greater detail than most of us recall—although we are all familiar with the outline of the story—of the problems of Abraham and his family. This is not such a new issue as some hon. Members imply in suggesting that the Government brought this measure forward only in response to the newspaper publicity that had surrounded one, albeit important, case — that of Baby Cotton. In fact, some time ago, the Government expected that that issue, along with many other related issues, would cause Parliament and the public much trouble. For that reason, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State invited Lady Warnock and her colleagues to consider all those related issues.
We initiated the giving of evidence, the consideration of that evidence by the committee and the presentation of the report's conclusions for wider public debate. Those conclusions included conclusions on surrogacy. The members of the Warnock committee were drawn from a wide background and had a wide range of professional expertise, personal and religious beliefs and outlooks on life. They were unanimously against the practice of commercial surrogacy but were, by a majority, against surrogacy of all kinds. That has been the tenor of the debate this afternoon, and I believe it is likely to be the tenor of general public opinion. We were addressing ourselves to the issue when we set up the Warnock committee.
During the last Session of Parliament my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) produced a private Member's Bill seeking to make surrogacy illegal. My hon. Friend would have pressed that legislation on to the statute book but for a lack of parliamentary time. That is what happens to many private Members' Bills. I remember having conversations at that time with my hon. Friend, urging her to wait until we had the views of the Warnock committee and arguing against a Bill dealing with surrogacy alone in advance of other issues. We were talking before Lady Warnock's committee had even reported.
The Warnock committee reported and all its members favoured making commercial surrogacy illegal. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde would have introduced her Bill yet again and placed further pressures on the House this year if it had not been made clear that the Government were converted to her point of view and were, in the light of the Warnock report, about to take action.
About 90 per cent. of those who have given us their opinions so far are against commercial surrogacy—as this Bill is. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) pointed out, all the churches gave their opinions against commercial surrogacy. The Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Free Church, the Methodists, the Roman Catholics, the Salvation Army and the Chief Rabbi have indicated that they agree with the Warnock conclusions against commercial surrogacy.
The Baby Cotton case was not a sudden, isolated incident which gave rise to rushed legislation. That case served to underline to the general public what was already becoming apparent to Ministers and to hon. Members—that something had to be done urgently about commercial surrogacy problems. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) reminded us, we are fairly certain that three other pregnancies have taken place as a result of commercial agency arrangements. In the next few months those children will be born. Obviously, the Bill will not affect those arrangements or taint them with criminality retrospectively.
It became even more important to act to ensure that a small, albeit thriving, industry did not develop, whereby agencies began to operate here, largely for Americans who wanted children, offering fees to mothers in this country to lease their wombs and by surrogacy provide a couple with a child.
The background to the legislation is not one of rush or of over-reaction to public issues, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) implied. A clear and consistent course of action by the Government has enabled us to identify at least this one narrow issue among all the important issues examined by Warnock. The time has come to invite the House to pass speedy legislation.
The debate has underlined the Government's judgment that this was the right action. There is rarely unanimity between both sides of the House about a Bill's basic aims. Every hon. Member has made it clear that he or she will support the Bill on Second Reading. The unanimity does not require any underlining by me. Whatever the angle at which one looks at the arrangements that commercial agencies might undertake in relation to surrogate motherhood, there are substantial dangers for all the parties involved and for society as a whole.
Hon. Members showed a slightly different emphasis in the particular party that they were seeking to protect. In some circumstances one can envisage any one of the parties being potentially a victim of the unwise decision to participate in a commercial arrangement of this kind. The surrogate mother may be exploited because of her financial needs or vulnerability and may be tempted to participate in an arrangement that she bitterly regrets. She may undoubtedly be a victim of the arrangement set up by the agency.
Some of the would-be parents may be victims. Some couples are desperate to have children. We all know of the heart-searching and the agony of some people who are unable to have children. As my hon. Friend the Member


for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde said, sums of up to £20,000 are sought from people for surrogacy arrangements so that they can ensure that at least one of them has his own child by fathering the child by a surrogate mother.
Most importantly, we are all concerned about the children who could be the tragic victims of arrangements entered into and organised by agencies for purely commercial reasons. The children could be the victims of a battle between the two sets of parents about who will exercise parental rights, or the three parents could reject the child and say that they no longer wish to have it because something has gone wrong.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde said, the remainder of the family, including other children of the surrogate mother or the would-be parents if they had adopted other children, could be adversely affected by the possible consequences if a commercial arrangement goes wrong. For all those reasons, it became apparent during the debate that we had succeeded in defining at least one narrow part of the subject—whether we wish to see commercial agencies establish themselves and negotiate agreements offering fees to those who take part—and establishing unanimity that the criminal law was required to ensure that that did not happen.
Unanimity extends only to the general points. The Government were asked a number of detailed points about the Bill, and they will plainly be dealt with in Committee. I shall not deal with them all in depth now. I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I do not do justice to the points which have been raised. We will return to them in Committee.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West queried the provision contained in clause 3(2) which attaches absolute liability to the proprietor, editor or publisher of a newspaper or periodical which carries an advertisement offering surrogacy. He implied that it was somewhat harsh that it should be a criminal offence for the proprietor, editor and so on to produce a newspaper containing such an advertisement. We shall return to this point later if it is necessary, but that provision is essential to make the ban on newspaper advertising effective.
Newspapers and periodicals are used to the practice of hiring people to read their copy to ensure that they do not render themselves liable to legal action for what has appeared in the newspaper. If it were necessary to establish that the proprietor knowingly published the advertisement, it would be far too easy for him to say that no one had thought of the point, that it had been overlooked and that no one had read the advertisement with that point in mind.
Absolute liability will ensure that the newspapers take the precautions they usually do to protect themselves against libel and all the other risks they run. We knew what we were doing when we made publication an absolute offence. If the hon. Gentleman presses that amendment in Committee, he runs the risk of making that part of the Bill ineffective.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West asked whether the Bill prevented donations to charitable surrogacy agencies which would collect money but claim that they were doing so for non-commercial reasons—for some greater cause or to plough back into the agency's work. Subject to any further thoughts that I may have before we reach Committee, my answer is that the Bill would prohibit such payments. The terms of clause 2(5) are so wide that such payments are caught if they are made

by the surrogate mother, the commissioning parent or someone connected with either of them. That is one of the purposes of clause 2(5).
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East asked what would happen if payments were deferred until some considerable period after the birth and after the rights over the child had been handed over. Subject to any further examination in Committee, we believe that the Bill deals with that point and prohibits such payments, because under clause 2(3) payments are prohibited "at any time". That would include deferred payments of the sort that my hon. Friend feared.
The hon. Member for Barking asked what would happen if there were a voluntary surrogacy arrangement among three parties who were not contemplating any commercial' arrangement, and they had the services of a solicitor to give them legal advice about drawing up a contract, or the services of a professional person to give general counselling, and contemplated paying a fee for such advice. Any solicitor, professional person or anyone contemplating doing anything for a fee for the parties involved would have to study the Bill carefully before giving any such advice. The answer is to be found ir. clause 2(1)(a), (b) and (c). That part of the Bill defines what the illegal acts will be if surrogacy is negotiated commercially by anyone.
It is arguable that if someone is giving general advice and counselling for a modest fee, they would not be committing a criminal offence. The Bill prohibits negotiating a surrogacy arrangement or taking part in negotiations which have a surrogacy arrangement in view. It also prohibits bringing together information to enable someone to put couples in touch with one another.
If advice fell short of negotiating an agreement, it is possible that arrangements could be entered into between a couple who wished to commission a surrogate child and a professional person without falling foul of the Bill. The moment that the solicitor began to negotiate a surrogacy arrangement, he would be caught by the Bill.
I am sure that the subject of jury trial will be raised in Committee. It was raised by—

Mr. Beith: Does the Minister accept the view of the Warnock committee, that it should be put beyond doubt that surrogacy arrangements cannot be enforced in the courts, or does he believe that there is no doubt that they cannot be enforced in the courts? What is the Government's view about that?

Mr. Clarke: I was about to deal with the hon. Member's point. I agree that it is relevant. It is our view, on advice, that such contracts are not enforceable now. If anyone went to the courts in this country seeking to enforce a surrogacy contract— if someone brought an action to try to compel an unwilling surrogate mother to hand over the child or if the surrogate mother went to court to try to compel the would-be parents to pay the fee promised under the contract—it is confidently felt by most people, as the Warnock committee felt, that such a contract would be regarded as unenforceable by the courts and contrary to public policy. It might be helpful fcr that point to be put beyond doubt in statute at some stage, because, although that is believed to be the position, there is no point in sitting around waiting for a test case, with all the problems that would surround such a case for the parties involved.
My right hon. Friend explained the policy behind the Bill. When producing the Bill, the Government set out to make it as narrow as possible to carry unanimity and to guarantee the speedy passage through the House which we think is essential. I do not, therefore, want to encourage amendments in Committee. I cannot be forthcoming about amendments at the moment. If, however, it turns out in Committee that there are narrow points that fall within the scope of the Bill, which command universal support, as the main policy has, and which are easily dealt with in drafting and other terms, the Government will consider them sympathetically to see whether we might have made the Bill too narrow and misjudged the mood of the House. If there is unanimity we might consider whether the Bill might be extended, but there will not be many such points.
The remainder of the debate related mostly to the wider issues of Warnock. A number of my hon. Friends asked why the Bill is so narrow and aimed only at commercial agencies and advertising. They asked why we had not taken the opportunity to go ahead, as they would wish, with making all surrogacy arrangements of any kind unenforceable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) felt most strongly about that matter. Indeed, the hon. Member for Oldham, West criticised the Government for acting so narrowly, for not having taken the opportunity to grapple with some of the wider issues in Warnock and for not having looked at surrogacy generally.
I agree entirely with the points made by all hon. Members, that there are very important questions for the House to resolve — for example, the legal status of children, how to sort out the problem of legitimacy and illegitimacy and the position of the child who wishes to know the exact circumstances of his birth. This issue has not been legally resolved. For example, what would happen if a child who had been adopted following a surrogacy arrangement sought to take advantage of the recently enacted legislation and tried to find out the full circumstances of his or her birth and the identity of the surrogate mother? These, and many other issues, were raised, but the hon. Members who raised them almost answered themselves because of the way in which they disagreed with one another.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and a number of my hon. Friends gave different opinions about the legislation they thought necessary in the case of unpaid surrogacy. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) postulated the state making payments to surrogate mothers. This was the furthest we went in one direction. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West put forward a very interesting proposition dealing with a point made by another of my hon. Friends: that one cannot stop purely private arrangements of the kind first started by Abraham,

so far as history recalls, but that at least it should be possible to prohibit all procurement by agencies and prevent the negotiating and advertising of these arrangements by anybody. However, the debate showed how difficult it would be to resolve these issues.
It will not be possible to obtain unanimity. The House genuinely reflects the very wide range of opinion which is found to exist among all interested sections of the general public. Not only is it difficult to obtain unanimity, whatever decision the Government first suggest and the House eventually makes will require great care and precision in its drafting and formulation. Before a Bill can be produced for the House to contemplate, a great deal of work will be required. The drafting of so complex a Bill will be a substantial undertaking. However, I can assure the House and my right hon. Friend that the work is in hand and that our desire is for such a Bill to be brought before the House as soon as possible.
It would be folly to try to say when, because of the complexity of the subject and the pressures on the parliamentary timetable for a Bill which will be a fairly lengthy undertaking, given all the hon. Members who have spoken today, should they wish to take part. However, the Government hope to bring such a Bill before the House during the lifetime of this Parliament and to give all hon. Members the chance to deal with those issues.
I hope that the House will take the decision which my right hon. Friend invited it to do when he introduced the Bill, and to leave on one side, without minimising them, the strongly held views about other aspects of surrogacy and the position of children and to say that this narrow point is so important that there should be a speedy end to commercial agencies and a quick suppression of any more Baby Cotton cases. I hope that opinions can be left on one side when it comes to giving this Bill a reasonably speedy passage through the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East asked when this Bill will come into force. It will come into force immediately after royal assent. However, when it receives royal assent is in the hands of all hon. Members, in particular in the hands of those who are selected to be members of the Standing Committee. I hope that the Bill will receive an unopposed Second Reading and that it will be an omen for a reasonably quick passage of the Bill. I believe that the general public will welcome the fact that on this very important moral issue, which has given rise to serious public concern, the House of Commons and the Government are totally in step with them and that we have shown that we can act in order to stop something which, if left untouched, will run the risk of becoming a grave moral problem.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 6

EXEMPTION FROM CORPORAL PUNISHMENT NOT GROUND FOR SUSPENSION, ETC.

'A person shall not be debarred from receiving education in any circumstances (whether by refusing him admission to a school, suspending his attendance or otherwise) on the grounds that, if he were not so debarred in those circumstances, he would not be adequately amenable to discipline by reason of his being a pupil exempt from corporal punishment by members of the staff for the purposes of section 1 of this Act.'.—[Mr. Dunn.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 7 and 13.
No. 22, in page 4, line 17, at end insert—
'(1A) No headteacher of a school or responsible body as set out in subsection (1) above shall exercise any power he, or as the case may he it, may have to refuse a pupil admission to a school or suspend or expel a pupil from a school or from education provided in a school solely because the pupil is or may be exempt from corporal punishment.',
Government amendments Nos. 26, 29, 33, 39, 47 to 49, and 51.

Mr. Dunn: I am delighted at long last to be at the Report stage of the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill. Rather like the organisers of "Miss World", I should like to deal with Government amendment No. 29, Opposition amendment No. 22, new clause 6 and all the other amendments on the Order Paper. During the recent short recess, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and I have on many occasions thought about the Report stage. The Bill went through a very short and amicable Committee stage, with the help and support of all the parties represented on the Committee. It was a unique occasion of good will and harmony.
If I may deal initially with new clause 6 and the other amendments to which I have just referred, it was argued in Standing Committee that the Bill gave inadequate protection for an exempt pupil against unjust measures, including suspension and expulsion from school. The fear of members on both sides of the Standing Committee was that schools would seek to circumvent the effect of the legislation, either by refusing admission to a pupil whose parents were known to favour exemption or by suspending or expelling a pupil simply because he had exempted status. It is fair to say that no member of the Standing Committee claimed that exempt pupils should be immune from debarment from school, only that exempt pupils might be the target of unfair practice designed to thwart the wishes of parents. I believe the House will accept that that is a fair though short interpretation of the views of members on both sides of the Committee.
During the proceedings in Standing Committee I was able to point to our proposal that questions about corporal punishment should be put to parents after a child had been accepted by a school. This, together with provisions to allow parents to change their mind, would in virtually all

cases rule out the possibility of a child being kept off a school roll because of parental views about exemption. Again it is true to say that, despite my assurances, some members of the Standing Committee had lingering doubts about this, and more particularly about the possibility of debarments affecting pupils on the roll when the school became aware of the wish of parents to exempt pupils. In order to remove those doubts and to make it plain on the face of the Bill that it would be intolerable to give a new right to parents on the one hand and then to allow a school effectively to withdraw it on the other, these amendments have been placed on the Order Paper.
In one sense the amendments go a little further than amendment No. 22, which was tabled before the recess by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. I think that he will accept that his amendment might be effective against a school that said, "We cannot accept your child any longer as a pupil because you have exempted him from corporal punishment." It might be less effective against a school that said, "Your son has been disturbing the good order of the school. We cannot apply effective discipline because you have exempted him from corporal punishment so we are debarring him from school." Such an argument — where actual misbehaviour and the principle of corporal punishment are entangled—is undermined by the Government amendments, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides will accept that these amendments support the principle that parents should not be unduly penalised for their philosophical convictions as they might be if schools resorted to debarments as a way of escaping the Bill's provisions.
Amendment No. 22 is also in the name of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. I think that he will accept my interpretation of his amendment, which is that its intention is to ensure that pupils whose education is publicly funded and whose parents claimed or might claim an exemption from corporal punishment could not be debarred solely on account of that claim. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have considerable sympathy for the principle behind the amendment, so much so that a Government amendment has been put forward to reinforce it.
I certainly would not want to see a pupil debarred simply and solely because a parent had exempted him or intended to exempt him from corporal punishment. fact, the Government amendment attempts to go a little further than amendment No. 22 ensuring that pupils are not debarred directly or indirectly because their parents exercise their rights under the Bill.
Government amendment No. 29 is a minor, technical amendment which allows the whole of the Bill as it affects England and Wales to be cited as one with the Education Act 1944 and subsequent relevant legislation.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We welcome the fact that, in a sense, the Government have met us on this point. However, we regret that they did not meet us on more points.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 3

PUNISHMENT POLICY

'Before the coming into force of this Act all local education authorities in England and Wales shall discuss their policy on


school punishments, and issue local guidelines to all governing bodies in their area, who shall then arrange for their schools to discuss the guidelines, and prepare a report for the governors, who shall then decide the punishment policy for that school.'. —[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amemdments: No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 6 leave out subsection (1) and insert—
'(1) Where in any civil or criminal proceedings it is shown that corporal punishment has been given to a pupil by or on the authority of a member of the staff, giving the punishment cannot be justified on the ground that it was done in pursuance of a right exercisable by the member of the staff by virtue of his position as such.'.
No. 17, in page 3, line 20, leave out clause 2.
No. 21, in clause 3, page 4, line 8, leave out subsections (1) to (4).
No 27, in page 4, line 37, leave out, 'This and'.
No. 30, in clause 4, page 5, line 7, leave out from '48A' to end of line 18 and insert—
'(1) Where in any civil or criminal proceedings it is shown that corporal punishment has been given to a pupil by or on the authority of a member of the staff, the giving of the punishment cannot be justified on the ground that it was done in pursuance of a right exercisable by a member of staff by virtue of his position as such.'.
No. 42, in page 7, leave out lines 1 to 38.
No. 43, in page 7, leave out from line 39 to line 11 on page 8.

Mr. Bennett: I hope that new clause 3 will be acceptable to the House.
I should like to begin by talking to amendments Nos. 1, 17, 21, 27, 30, 42 and 43. Taken together, the amendments set out the view of the Opposition, which is that we should have an abolition Bill rather than this half measure that the Government are putting forward. Although we put it on the record clearly on Second Reading and in Committee that we would have preferred an abolition Bill, it is worth repeating, to make it absolutely clear, that on a matter of principle we think that corporal punishment should be abolished in all our schools. It is now perfectly possible for the Government to do so.
Corporal punishment is a barbaric practice. When so many people go out of their way to express their horror at the violence in our society, and argue that they want to do all that they can to reduce violence, it is amazing that they still believe that by bringing violence into the classroom we can give people good examples that will not lead to violence later. The more one encourages the use of violence in education, the more likely one is to create a society in which people think that violence can, on occasions, be justified.
Therefore, I would have much preferred the Government to come forward with a clear statement of principle that they believe that, in education, corporal punishment in any of its forms is totally unnecessary. Going round the country, I find it attractive that the vast majority of good schools have managed to phase out corporal punishment altogether. I have been amazed to find that, even when I have gone to areas where authorities have abolished corporal punishment and some teachers

had reservations when abolition was announced, in almost every instance the teachers have come to accept that. If one looks at the amount of school violence, one sees that there seems to be a strong correlation between the decline of violence among pupils and the abolition of corporal punishment. Therefore, I hoped very much that, even at this late stage, the Government would turn this Bill into a straightforward abolition Bill.
If the Government will not go along the lines of abolition as a matter of principle, I argue strongly that they should look at the problems of the costs involved in the legislation and the creation of a substantial bureaucracy, which will be resented by many schools. Many schools will probably interpret the Bill as an abolition Bill. When one goes round schools, one finds that almost all are under pressure from cuts of one sort or another. Many local authorities seem to feel that rather than cut teaching staff, it is easier to cut back on the hours of the school secretary or people involved in administration. Sometimes those cuts are ill-advised because it means that teachers and heads end up doing more administration and less teaching and doing what they are most skilled at. It is a false economy to cut in that area. My impression is that most schools are hard pressed for secretarial assistance. Even in a primary school, having to send all the letters—

Mr. William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the Labour party, when in government, did not abolish corporal punishment in schools? The European convention on human rights has been with us for a long time. Furthermore, will he explain why the Labour chairman of Mid-Glamorgan education committee described the campaigners for abolition as
just not living in the real world.
That quotation comes from The Times of 10 January 1984.

Mr. Bennett: I am well aware of the views of the chairman of Mid-Glamorgan local authority. I see that the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), is saying that he is a very good man.
Questions of local democracy are involved. There are problems in persuading all those who support the Labour party that the views that I am expressing are the right ones. However, I believe that if people stop and look at all the evidence, on the whole they come round to the abolition point of view. I have made it clear to the House that when I was a teacher, in one of the first schools that I worked in I was involved in using corporal punishment. I very much regret it. It was a measure of some of the problems that we used to face in schools. If one is faced with a class of 42 pupils or more, treating each one as an individual and being prepared to look at the problems of each individual is extremely difficult. It is also difficult if the school structure is not good. However, if class sizes are made much smaller and we work at creating an atmosphere of discipline in the school, which is good and supportive of new teachers who are in their probationary period, it is perfectly possible to run a good school without resort to corporal punishment.

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Charles Wardle: rose—

Mr. Bennett: I am not giving way.
In Europe, there has never been any question of corporal punishment in many schools, and no one has suggested that there is a need for it. I argue strongly that


there is a good case for us being able to abolish it. With regard to what the Labour Government did or did not do, there is a whole series of areas in which I should like to see education advance and in which I regret that more progress was not made during that period.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Based on experience in Committee, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's position on corporal punishment has been so eroded by the nonsense of the Bill that abolition is now inevitably on the way and that the Government's last defensive stand is clearly just a gesture? Does my hon. Friend agree that both sides of the House, the entire educational world and most of the electorate realise that the major step has been taken and that the principle that we espouse is bound to win in the end?

Mr. Bennett: Yes, I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
If the Government will not go for abolition as a matter of principle, they should consider the costs involved in the scheme and the extra burden on school administration. As the Minister knows, most school secretaries are under considerable pressure. Due to cuts in supplies of books and other materials there is increasing pressure to have such materials duplicated or photocopied in the school, which places an increasing burden on secretaries and administration. There is also an increasing demand for statistical information, for which Parliament is sometimes to blame.
The combination of cuts and extra duties has placed ever-increasing burdens on school administration in recent years and the Government's scheme will exacerbate the situation. Letters will have to be sent to parents to ask for their views. A second set of letters will then have to be sent out and the register kept up to date. Moreover, it is important that all those tasks should be accurately carried out. In the past four weeks I have visited about 15 schools. In every case, whether or not the school already does without corporal punishment, the head took the view that the procedure in the Bill was unworkable and that the school would regard it as an abolition measure rather than try to administer such a scheme. I appreciate that it will be necessary to persuade the school governors, but that is the clear view of the head teachers.

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the cost of the system proposed in the Bill. Is he aware that, according to a report in Teacher last year, Leeds city council estimated that alternatives to corporal punishment would cost it about £3 million and require the appointment of about 280 extra teachers?

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman's figures are interesting, but he should consider what is obtained as a result. Whether caning children persuades them to be helpful, conforming pupils who will benefit from their education is quite another matter. I accept that setting up special units may be quite expensive, but they may also provide much better value for money. I am worried, however, that too much emphasis is being placed on corporal punishment and too little on school discipline in general.

Mr. Cash: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the withdrawal units—often described as sanctuaries or sin bins—are an increasingly popular means of dealing with disruptive pupils and that in 1977 there were 239 such units in England with accommodation for 3,900 pupils?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the cost of such units is considerable. The units visited by Her Majesty's inspectorate dealt with 1,890 pupils at a cost of 235 full-time and 86 part-time teachers. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will comment on that.

Mr. Bennett: Certainly some of the so-called sin bins are very expensive and some, I believe, are unnecessary.
That brings me nicely on to new clause 3. It is important to abolish corporal punishment, but it is even more important to have a useful debate on the whole subject of discipline. In that sense, I regret that the Government have introduced this Bill rather than a far more comprehensive measure on school discipline as a whole. I believe that far more attention should be devoted to that aspect. I hope that when local authorities and school governors consider this measure they will not spend all their time arguing about whether to have corporal punishment in their schools but will spend far more time discussing the code of discipline to be used in their schools.
I hope that the role of parents will also be considered in depth. Too often, schools expect parents to take the lead in maintaining discipline while parents expect the school to do so, when what is needed is co-operation. Neither should attempt to shrug off the responsibility or, to the other. Problems of discipline and behaviour should be discussed with parents at an early stage to secure cooperation between the parents and the school and, if possible, the pupil.
The Bill should provide an opportunity for all local authorities to review the whole question of the form of discipline acceptable in their schools. There should be full discussion in the schools as to the sanctions required. The local authority or the school governors will then make the policy decision.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) was worried about the cost of the so-called sin bins. In a sense, the extent to which local authorities use them, sometimes more than necessary, worries me less than the practice of some authorities in allowing governors to suspend pupils and to do very little about them thereafter. I referred in Committee to a child in my constituency who was suspended for a long period following incidents at school and in my view was not receiving any proper education during that period. Far too often pupils in their third or fourth year of secondary school are suspended for long periods during which they receive extremely inadequate education.

Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman said that this subject led him on nicely to new clause 3. Perhaps I may refer to the actual wording of the new clause rather than to the hon. Gentleman's comments. It states:
Before the coming into force of this Act all local education authorities in England and Wales shall discuss their policy on school punishments, and issue local guidelines to all governing bodies in their area, who shall then arrange for their schools to discuss the guidelines, and prepare a report for the governors, who shall then decide the punishment policy for that school.
Nothing whatever is said about the criteria to be used in the guidelines, an omission which seems to me so fundamental as to make the new clause utterly meaningless. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will inform us of the criteria that he believes should be applied.
The hon. Gentleman said that he believed that corporal punishment should be abolished altogether, but I suggest—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going into detailed arguments that he might raise if called to speak in the debate.

Mr. Bennett: I gave way to the hon. Member for Stafford somewhat generously, in the hope that if he dealt with some of the points in an intervention he would not wish to make a speech.
The Opposition believe in local democracy. We believe that, within some guidelines, local authorities should make up their own minds. We firmly believe that corporal punishment should be abolished, but we want local authorities to be allowed to make up their own minds.
Some local authorities have set up special units or sin bins. That is a matter for the local authorities. It is most important that each local authority and governing body should debate not just the merits and demerits of corporal punishment but the wider issues. The aim of the new clause is to suggest that there should be a thorough-going review of the punishment system and, in particular, of the whole issue of suspension—the circumstances in which suspension is resorted to, what the local authority does once a pupil has been suspended and what attempts are made to ensure that a youngster suspended from school is given a proper education.
The local authority should also consider the question of transferring pupils to special schools for the maladjusted. There is evidence that some children are pushed in that direction simply because a particular school finds them difficult to handle. The House spent much time debating the Education Act 1981, which dealt with special education. We all supported the principle of trying to integrate pupils with special educational needs into the mainstream schools. It is not good practice to exclude children from schools because of discipline problems, and we should try to create a system in which mainstream schools are given support so that they can continue to educate such children themselves.
I have talked to a teacher working in a withdrawal unit to which pupils are sent because they have been suspended. His brief was clear. It was to try to create an atmosphere in which children could be returned to mainstream schools as soon as possible. In practice, children at that unit do not return promptly to mainstream schools because they enjoy the education offered in the unit so much that they want to stay there. Why cannot similar conditions be created in mainstream schools, so that the youngster is happy to be taught in his own school rather than in a withdrawal unit?
There is evidence that some heads, especially in large comprehensive schools, run what are in fact withdrawal units within the school. That is another matter that the local authority should discuss. There should be a thorough-going review by all local authorities of the question of the proper policy, within that local authority, on discipline in schools. Such a review would be as important, in a sense, as this legislation—certainly in its present form.
Who has control over the final decision—the local authority or the school governors? It was disappointing to see that amendment No. 18 does not appear on the selection list, although I understand the reasons why it does not. I hope that it will be in order for me to deal briefly with the questions raised in that amendment, as they are also relevant to new clause 3.
The question is whether the Bill is neutral in terms of the relationship between the local authority and the school governors, whether it is rather more positive and removes from the local authority power to make a decision about corporal punishment and to make that decision stick, or whether it confers a decision-making power on the governors. The Minister insisted in Committee that the Bill is neutral and that it is not his intention to change the relationship between the local authority and the school governors. However, I have here a letter from Peter Wallington of the university of Lancaster's department of law, who suggests that the Bill is not neutral. I also have a letter from Stephen Sedley, QC, who makes a similar point.

Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bennett: Clause 3(1) of the Bill places a special duty on the governing body. The argument in the two letters is that if the Bill gives the governing body a special duty, it is hard for the Minister to argue that it is neutral. There would be a strong presumption in the courts that if the Bill conferred a duty on the governing body—what the Bill refers to as the "responsible body"—that body would be able to exercise that duty. The Minister says, however, that the local authority has overriding powers. I hope that he will make his position clear. That may be a point to which the House of Lords will wish to give further consideration.
My impression is that the clause is not neutral and that it transfers the powers from the local authority to the governing body. That would be unfortunate because the strength of many governing bodies is the fact that the members work as a team. Within most of them there is very little sense of a political divide, and on the whole they work for the good of the school rather than being directed by political considerations or any other policy. It would not be good for the governing bodies to find themselves divided by arguments about corporal punishment. They should act on a basis of consensus.
Also, if it turned out that local authorities did not have power to abolish corporal punishment, some authorities might be tempted to pack the governing bodies. The Minister would not want that to happen. I hope that he will make it clear that it will still be possible for a local authority to decide whether it wants corporal punishment and that if a local authority decides that it does not want corporal punishment, the governors will not be able to overturn that decision.
It is sad that we are not discussing an abolition Bill. I would very much welcome Government acceptance of amendments Nos. 1, 17, 21, 27, 30, 42 and 43, which would turn the Bill into an abolition Bill, but I would be very much surprised by Government acceptance of those amendments. However, I hope that the Minister will make it clear that he wants all local authorities, governing bodies and teachers to review discipline in their schools and to consider what is needed, and will also make it clear that he will take account of the complicated administration necessitated by the Bill and will consider the question of abolition. I hope that he will confirm that this is indeed a neutral Bill, in spite of the fact that we have had much legal advice that it is far from neutral and that it alters the relationship between the local authorities and the governing bodies.

Mr. Dunn: I congratulate the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on his remarks, to which I have listened with interest although I have heard them on a number of occasions in Standing Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) made a point about the chairman of the mid-Glamorgan education authority. In reply, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish talked about local decision-making and local democracy. I understand his point, but the question of local democracy and decision-making can be used to make a case for precisely the policy that the hon. Gentleman fears —the belief that governing bodies should have some rights of veto or self-determination if they wish to apply corporal punishment in their schools even though the local education authority may be politically, philosophically or morally opposed to it.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the increase in bureaucracy. I listened with interest to what he said. I cannot share his vision of the future—many extra hours of work being imposed on school clerical staff —although I accept that there will be some extra work. However, a tremendous amount of extra work will fall on school clerical staff and teaching staff if there is an increase in the number of expulsions and suspensions. Many governing bodies discuss expulsions and suspensions. Reports are asked for, and they are often submitted to the local education authority. That process involves typing checking, reformulation, copying and postage, all of which involve extra expenditure and work. I therefore had double vision when listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford mentioned the increase in the number of withdrawal units or sin bins, as they are known more euphemistically. I regret the number of such establishments. Indeed, I regret crime and sin, but they exist. I therefore accept the need in certain circumstances for units to which disruptive children may be withdrawn for their own good and that of their fellows.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister admit that the growth in their numbers has occurred irrespective of whether the local authority has a policy of allowing corporal punishment, and that it has often grown where there is still far too much corporal punishment?

Mr. Dunn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point but not with his second. Nevertheless, I regret the increase in the number of sin bins for the reasons that I have given.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned discussion and the constant review of policy on discipline, the problems and incidence of misbehaviour, and how a school, communities, parents and teachers react to its growth. All local education authorities, teachers, governors, and parents should be anxious about the growth of misbehaviour and misdemeanour and review constantly their attitude to and policies for meeting those problems. That happens in many local authorities, irrespective of their political persuasion.
I shall urge the House to resist new clause 3 because there is no necessity for local authorities to go to the lengths suggested by it. The best approach must be for education authorities to leave these matters to schools. Disciplinary sanctions are best handled at school level because much depends on how a school operates and its ethos. Local authorities are often not well placed to lay down guidelines.
Schools will need time to discuss disciplinary issues before an exemptions scheme comes into force. Discussions might well extend beyond the narrow issue of corporal punishment, and I therefore imagine that the debate which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish wants will occur in many local education authorities. There is no need to stipulate precisely how those discussions should be organised. The initiative can and ought to come from schools.
I am surprised by new clause 3 as it seems to leave punishment issues to governing bodies in the last resort. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish has sought assurances that the Bill is not intended to prevent local education authorities from banning corporal punishment, yet new clause 3 seems to give the last word to governing bodies.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I accept that criticism, but I should think that the Minister is aware that, if amendment No. 18 had been selected, we should have been able to make our stance clear. I referred to that amendment. The new clause would have been better worded if it was clearly neutral, but it is a little unfair for the Minister to chide me for that when he has not managed, so far, to answer our criticism that his Bill is not neutral.

Mr. Dunn: I shall deal with that matter after considering the amendments in the group.

Mr. Cash: Is my hon. Friend aware that the same professor of law at the University of Lancaster has produced another report, which has everything to do with the miners' dispute? Perhaps my hon. Friend would be good enough to give his view on that?

Mr. Dunn: The House is grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. My reaction is one of interest. If there are fears about the intentions behind the Bill, there is an answer which I am sure will settle them.
The amendments in the group are intended to abolish corporal punishment. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish has returned to this theme often. I am not surprised by the incidence and type of the amendments. Opposition Members have tried steadfastly to turn the Bill into one which abolishes corporal punishment. On behalf of the Government, I have resisted such attempts, and do so again now. It has been argued that schools' use of reasonable and moderate corporal punishment is so wrong and so utterly inappropriate that the law should ban it. I disagree, as do many thousands of teachers and parents.
Whatever place we accord to this form of punishment in the disciplinary regime of a school— we all have views about that — I cannot accept that, by its very nature, it is a sanction that ought to be banned by law. We are discussing reasonable and moderate corporal punishment. Opponents of corporal punishment use Loaded guilt-inducing words such as beatings, floggings and thrashings. They use the language of extremes. The point at issue is reasonable and moderate measures to impose discipline and to confront unruly or bullying behaviour.
Other people take a more pragmatic approach. They argue about the effectiveness of corporal punishment and say that it is so ineffective that the law should be invoked to prohibit its use. Thousands of teachers and parents—those close to the daily problems — take an opposite view about its efficiency. They believe that it has a useful function. I am ready to leave judgment about that to


schools and parents and am not prepared to go along with the view that we should enforce abolition through legislation, simply because some believe that so many teachers and parents are wrong.
It has been argued that, although parents might favour reasonable and moderate corporal punishment for other children, they oppose it for their own, I disagree and, apparently, so do many parents. Indeed, on the very day on which the Standing Committee has its final meeting, The Times published the results of a MORI poll. Leaving aside the "Don't knows", some 63 per cent. of parents interviewed favoured the use of corporal punishment in schools. Perhaps even more significantly, a slightly higher proportion— 65 per cent. — said that they would give schools permission to use corporal punishment on their children. It must be disconcerting to Opposition Members to see from the poll that among Labour and alliance supporters, some 60 per cent. of parents favour the use of corporal punishment in schools.
7 pm
The Government are not prepared to ignore figures such as those. That poll helped to demonstrate the real point of the Bill—that many parents and teachers wish to retain corporal punishment, and in our view, when parents and school agree about its use on a particular pupil, we should not intervene with an enforced ban.

Mr. Conal Gregory: My right hon. Friend rightly reports on the market research and on the fact that not for the first time the Opposition are out of touch with the electorate. A most persuasive factor is presumably the number of countries which still adhere to corporal punishment, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada and the Commonwealth. Those countries which have banned it—for example, France—have found that the alternatives are so inadequate that they have resorted to other functions. France has had to ensure that family allowance is withdrawn because it has been unable to find enough penalties.

Mr. Dunn: From time to time it has been suggested that such a practice would occur here. I am not convinced that such a move would necessarily have the objective which some people might claim.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister make it absolutely clear that although the power to withdraw family allowance technically exists in France, it is used hardly at all and that that is an unfair smear?

Mr. Dunn: It is a perfectly legitimate view to advance. All hon. Members have the right to express their opinions. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) has advanced a view which is not unfamiliar to those of us who served in Committee. However, I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish that the scheme as applied in France has not achieved the heights that were promised or expected.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish referred to the Bill's neutrality. I gave him an undertaking in Committee and he has seen copies of correspondence that I have sent to Mr. Peter Newell of the Children's Legal Centre. I wrote to Mr. Newell on 4 April and sent copies to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friends who

expressed an interest in the matter. On that occasion I pointed out that the Bill is broadly neutral. That is my reading of it and that is the advice that I have been given.
At present, school articles of government are the means by which responsibility for the conduct of a school—and that includes discipline and corporal punishment—is assigned. These articles of government vary between authorities and sometimes between schools within an authority, but usually they assign ultimate responsibility for discipline to school governing bodies, albeit often in imprecise terms. Some articles of government offer local education authorities general override powers—they are drawn up so as to give the local education authority the power to override the decisions of the governing body. Some local education authorities have used such provisions to impose an authority-wide ban on corporal punishment. Some others have achieved the same end by using their position as employers. Either through negotiations with teachers' unions or by recourse to general provisions within teachers' contracts of employment, the local education authorities have reached a position where the teachers are left in no doubt that as employees they are not expected to use and apply corporal punishment.
That is the background against which this matter should be considered. It is a grey area of overlapping and sometimes conflicting responsiblities and powers. I accept that the present position is unsatisfactory and that Parliament should settle the respective powers of head teachers, governing bodies and local education authorities in relation to school discipline, but I am opposed to using this Bill to clarify the position.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We would like the position clarified, but we are not arguing that this Bill ought to be the vehicle for clarifying the responsibility between governors and local authorities. We are suggesting that clause 3 positively says that in future the responsible body will be the governing body. That is our worry.

Mr. Dunn: I should like to continue and perhaps I shall calm the hon. Gentleman's jangled nerves. He must know, as I do, that the partnership between the local education authority and schools is complex. I must say in all honesty that if the Government had to make a choice between giving control of corporal punishment to local education authorities or to schools, they would opt for the latter. That would be in line with the Government's reasoned case for a new legislative framework for schools as set out in the recent White Paper "Better Schools".
It is important not to look at corporal punishment in isolation. This issue is related to discipline and that in turn is related to the conduct of schools. Indeed, the whole relationship between heads, school governing bodies and local education authorities on a wide variety of topics should be considered together.
As the House knows, the White Paper envisages a new approach—a rational approach in which all aspects are considered alongside each other. It foreshadows legislative proposals to bring clarity out of this grey area, and that is the context in which changes should be discussed.
I know that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is greatly concerned that without an amendment those local education authorities which have abolished corporal punishment will be forced by the Bill to abandon that


policy. I can assure him that such is not the Bill's intention, or my reading of it as it stands. It has been our intention that the Bill should be neutral on this question. But we need to distinguish between decisions about the keeping of registers — on which clause 2(2) has something to say — and decisions about the use of corporal punishment. The point is that clause 2 has to place on some party the responsibility for deciding whether a register is to be maintained, and, if it so decides, to ensure its proper maintenance. Where a local education authority has taken a prior decision to abolish corporal punishment and has a legal right to do so, a decision by the governing body to keep a register will have no practical effect. In the light of the information that I have given, I hope that the new clause and amendments will not be pressed to a Division.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I did not expect that I would persuade the Government to go along with an abolition measure. Therefore, I shall not press further amendment No. 1 and the others which would have turned the measure into an abolition Bill. However, I hope that in the other place some of their Lordships will return to the arguments in principle and to the impracticalities of the Bill.
As to new clause 3, I believe that most local authorities will have the debate for which I am calling. I am still concerned about the Minister's explanation of whether the power lies with the local authority or the governing body. I remain unconvinced, and am worried that the Minister said that if the Government had to choose they would put the responsibility with the governors, but that they were not choosing now. The Bill suggests that the Government are coming down on the side of the governors. I hope that we are wrong about that, and that local authorities and governing bodies will not be involved in litigation on the matter. It would not be to their advantage. I hope that they will accept the Minister's word that he intends to leave the position as it is, and that if a local authority chooses to abolish corporal punishment, it can do so. The Minister seemed to hint that the governors would be entitled to keep a register, and the local authority would be entitled to instruct all the teachers whom it employed not to administer corporal punishment. That would be farcical.
In the hope that the Minister is right and that what he says, rather than our interpretation of the words, is correct, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

PUNISHMENT BOOK

Regulations made under section 2 of this Act and section 48B of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 shall provide that in schools where a register is maintained for the purposes of the administration of corporal punishment, a punishment book shall be kept in which shall be recorded all incidents of corporal punishment and all other punishments administered by the school to be equivalent to corporal punishment, to those pupils not on the register. '.—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 52, in schedule page 10, line 10, at end insert
'Maintenance of punishment book to record incidents of corporal punishment etc.'.

Mr. Bennett: New clause 4 is an attempt to probe the Government about their intentions over the use of punishment books in schools when the regulations come into force. At present schools where corporal punishment is practised have a statutory duty to ensure that all acts of corporal punishment are recorded in the punishment book. That seems to be a sensible practice. In that way the governors can consider how frequently corporal punishment is administered. It records which punishments are given so that the governors can discuss the wider issues of the ethos of the school. The book provides an opportunity for an individual teacher to record that a punishment has taken place in case there should be a future court action. It also enables one to examine the punishment record of an individual pupil and to weigh up whether the school is the appropriate place for him and whether he is being appropriately dealt with. A head who sees the name of a pupil frequently entered in the punishment book must consider carefully whether the school is dealing with that pupil correctly. The punishment book serves a useful function in informing governors and in safeguarding teachers' and pupils' rights.
Will the Minister tell us how he envisages the punishment book developing under the dual system of punishment which is to operate in schools under this legislation? Some children will remain subject to corporal punishment because of their parents' agreement to it, and other pupils will not be subject to it because of their parents' objections to it. It would be completely unreasonable and unfair if only one set of names were entered in the punishment book for the same offence. It would be logical, where a school retains corporal punishment but does not use it on particular pupils, if two pupils committed a similar offence for which their names would be entered in a punishment book had they been subject to corporal punishment, that their names should be entered in the book with the alternative punishment recorded.
I would have thought that the Government could accept this amendment. The Minister may be able to convince us that it is unnecessary. However, I hope that the practice of recording serious offences will continue. I hope that schools will not administer corporal punishment if the offence is not serious. That way over a period of time governing bodies can consider the style and ethos of punishments in the school. There will also be safeguards for the teaching staff, and the opportunity for heads and senior teachers, especially in secondary schools, to review the way in which the school is dealing with a particular pupil and to decide whether the punishments being meted out are leading to a change in the pupil's behaviour or reinforcing his misbehaviour undesirably. I hope that the Minister will look with sympathy at an amendment along these lines or introduce a Government amendment in the other place.

Mr. Clement Freud: I have always contended that this is a bad, unworkable Bill, which is why I have been unable to get worked up about opposing it. New clause 4 is a good idea. It is desirable to have as much information about school discipline and punishment as possible. The Department of Education and Science does not know the number or racial composition of children who are suspended from schools. I know that


because I asked a question and was told so. I do not know how the Department can formulate a policy from a position of complete ignorance, but it has.
It is not the end of the story for parents to opt into corporal punishment because they may approve in theory but change their minds when they find that their child's school uses the cane often or harshly. Parents must have information before they make the choice. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) wants incidents of discipline that are considered to be so serious as to merit corporal punishment to be recorded. He wishes to ensure, where corporal punishment is not administered because a child is exempt from it, that where a caned child's name appears frequently in the book, he will not be branded a trouble-maker if he is not doing anything worse than a child who is not caned. The amendment therefore relates to equality.
Since I have known the Minister, and certainly during the passage of the Bill, his most uplifting remark was during the last group of amendments when he said that there was no need to stipulate precisely how these things are done. That should be the working title of this Bill—"There is no need to stipulate precisely how these things are done." I hope that when the Bill goes to another place and when, in future, educationists read our discussions, people will bear in mind that new clause 4 is a good idea. Its provisions should be carried out in practice. Even if it is not enshrined in law, the keeping of a register and the amassing of proper concrete information will always be helpful to education.

Mr. Robert Key: On consideration of the amendment I have come to the conclusion that it is bad and that we would be wrong to accept it. The part of the new clause that leads me to that decision states that in a punishment book shall be recorded.
all other punishments administered by the school to be equivalent to corporal punishment, to those pupils not on the register.
It is hard enough to define corporal punishment. In reading the responses to the large number of letters that I received from headmasters in my constituency—I received more than 40 about the Bill—I conclude that for all its faults the Bill will be welcomed.
However, I wish to draw attention to the problem of defining what is meant by corporal punishment. I shall give two examples. I received a letter from a headmistress of a primary school. She said that some months ago she had occasion to punish a group of boys aged between seven and nine who were fighting during break and disobeying the requests of the school dinner ladies. I remind the House that we are dealing with the practical problems of running schools. When the boys were brought before the head teacher she happened to be using a ruler to complete a diagram. She decided that a quick tap with the ruler on the hand was the best course of punishment. She had never used the ruler prior to that occasion and had rarely smacked a child. She thought no more of the incident, which had the desired effect. The young men were so shocked — not hurt — that they behaved beautifully for the rest of the day. That evening the head teacher received a phone call from a parent who asked what had happened and whether the head teacher had the right to punish the pupils. The parent reported the action

to county hall and the governors, and the head teacher had a distressing week while the parent deliberated whether to sue her for assault. The parent insisted that the head teacher apologise to the child, which the head teacher refused to do. However, she apologised to the parent for misreading "cane" to mean "ruler" — no cane being available—in local education authority instructions. The governors decided not to pursue the matter with the authority, but the head teacher has now received a letter stating that that child must not, in any circumstances, be punished physically. That is on record for all the staff to see.
Another head teacher in my constituency wrote to me saying that, in 14 years as a headmaster, he had neither needed nor used the cane at any time, and that the standard of discipline and behaviour in his school was considered excellent and that the control of children was administered fairly to all at all times. He is sure that most parents would support him in retaining the right, in loco parentis, to smack a child for such offences as telling lies, using bad language or being rude to an adult.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wishes to get on record the letters from head teachers in his constituency. I do not blame him for that, but he is trying to criticise my new clause on this basis. Is it not the Bill that presents the problem of definition? The Minister made it clear that the Bill included the smack. Although I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for making it clear that there are problems of definition, I hope that he will use that as criticism of the Bill, not of the new clause.

Mr. Key: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making my point for me. I am trying to point out that there is a problem of definition. If we cannot define, and if it is not generally appreciated by head teachers, what is meant by corporal punishment, it is ludicrous to expect a head teacher or anyone else to decide an equivalent to corporal punishment, as the new clause suggests. On those grounds, I shall oppose the new clause.

Mr. Dunn: The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) said that statistics are necessary to formulate policy. I should tell him that my Department does not formulate policy without information from a variety of sources, including surveys conducted with local education authorities, what people tell us in the House and elsewhere and HMI reports, on which we rely heavily. We are not entirely without the knowledge at which he hinted in his remarks.
Punishment books are kept by and in schools because of paragraph 6 of DES administrative memorandum 531, which everyone knows is dated 10 May 1956—a very good year for several things.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Tell us what.

Mr. Dunn: If the hon. Gentleman has the time and patience, I will name many things that happened in 1956, including my 10th birthday.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) was right about the definition of equivalents or alternatives. I can imagine much debate continuing in


education authorities, in rooms in which school government is discussed and maintained, about what is an equivalent. The mind races a little at the prospect of a star system, with two brown stars or three red stars being awarded for offences. The child can build up something like a green shield stamp book—a passport to infamy, and possibly expulsion and suspension. I do not believe that that was in the mind of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. One can imagine the bureaucracy that would be involved in the creation of a bible of definitions for use by those responsible for the control of children in school.
There should be no difficulty about keeping a record of all cases of corporal punishment, because such a requirement has been carried out since 1956. Schools do that now, and to that extent the new clause is unnecessary. However, the amendment goes further than that in an extremely selective way. It extends the record-keeping which schools would have to do. Although the hon. Gentleman was concerned earlier about the growth of bureaucracy, his new clause seeks to increase it. I note that, as the new clause is framed, schools not using corporal punishment would be free from the new burden. That seems to make it an extra chore, or an additional penalty to be imposed on schools that dare to apply corporal punishment.
But even if that were not the case, I would oppose the new clause. The extra records might be interesting, but they would not be essential to the life of the school, and for a large secondary school there would be practical difficulties. In any one day, many sorts of disciplinary sanctions might be used, and the school would have to devise a method of collecting all the information and deciding which punishments were equivalent to corporal punishment so that entries could be made in the punishment book. Whereas a corporal punishment register is an essential part of an exemptions scheme, this punishment book clearly is not and would not be essential.
Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the new clause to a Division.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am disappointed by the Minister's response because he does not seem to consider natural justice. Let us assume that two pupils are caught smoking behind the cycle sheds. One is on the register and the other is not. I do not say that either of them should have to suffer corporal punishment for smoking, but I am aware that in some schools it is still a fairly regular punishment. The pupil who is on the register will be given corporal punishment, and the punishment book will record that he was given one or two strokes of the cane or the strap for smoking behind the bicycle shed. Nothing will be recorded for the other pupil. Whatever alternative punishment the head decides is appropriate for that pupil, there is no requirement to record it. Therefore, in 10 years' time, someone can look through the punishment book and see that the first pupil was caned, but the other pupil will have no record.
That is unfair and not good for the school's administration, because over a period there will be a tendency to examine the punishment book and see that the names of some pupils occur fairly frequently. The pupils whose parents have insisted that they should not be subject to corporal punishment may have been punished in alternative ways, yet their names will not be in the book. In terms of natural justice between the two pupils, it must be logical to record both names.
I accept that, as the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said, there are problems of definition, but they relate to the Bill, not to the new clause. The hon. Gentleman will have to explain to the head teachers in his constituency that, whatever his view of corporal punishment and whatever their view, once the Bill is implemented, even a smack will count as corporal punishment and can, therefore, be administered only to pupils whose names are on the register. Since it will count as corporal punishment, it will also have to be recorded in the punishment book. Teachers will have to take those matters into account as a result of the definition of corporal punishment chosen by the Minister.

Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman gives an example of two pupils caught smoking behind the bicycle sheds and of one receiving punishment, but the other receiving a different punishment because he was exempted. We must not forget that the head teacher and staff have some say in the punishment applied other than corporal punishment, and they must apply a judgment as to what appears to be fair to the children. Additionally, the difficulty that I outlined of collecting information at the end of the day, week or month and then recording it, is an insuperable point. However, if a school wished to have two books —a corporal punishment book and an equivalents book —there is no reason why it should not do so, if it can afford the time and the bureaucracy to make such a book work.

Mr. Bennett: There is a strong argument for keeping a record of serious punishment. Most teachers at schools where serious punishment is meted out probably believe that a record is necessary. Indeed, I hope that corporal punishment is used only for serious cases. An overall record should be kept of what is happening in a school so that people can judge whether the sanctions are working. A secondary school would be ill-administered if there was not some attempt to record information about punishments meted out to a pupil who was, perhaps, not as co-operative as he might be. It is obvious that at this stage I cannot persuade the Minister to accept new clause 4. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

RESTRICTION ON CORPORAL PUNISHMENT OF PUPILS

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 4, leave out
'or an immediate danger to the property of'.
This is one area of the Bill in which we feel that the Government have not considered the question of degree. Where a pupil is likely to cause physical harm to a member of staff, another pupil or himself, it is important that it is clear that the member of staff is entitled to use whatever force necessary to restrain the pupil. However, to extend that right to the defence of property involves a question of degree. If a pupil was thought likely to set fire to a school or to carry out substantial damage to property, everyone would accept the right of a teacher to intervene and to use force to prevent that. However, the Government do not qualify
an immediate danger to the property".


I understand the difficulties of including qualifications in legislation. However, the word "substantial" before "danger to the property" would clarify the matter.
I remember going into a classroom and seeing a pupil deliberately snapping a ruler. That made me very cross, but it would not have justified my setting about the pupil physically. As I understand the Bill, any item of property would fall within the wording of the clause. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will clarify the degree of damage involved. I regret that the Bill does not tie down the whole question of degree.

Mr. Dunn: The Bill as it stands, through clause 1(3), reinforces the common law right to take action, even where that action amounts to a battery, to prevent harm coming to a person or property. The amendment would remove that reinforcement insofar as it extends to the protection of property.
The Opposition amendment implies that, while it may be fine to take physical steps to prevent a pupil from harming another person or himself, it is unwarranted to do so when it is property rather than a person in immediate danger. The House cannot accept that proposition.
Let us imagine for a moment that a boy is discovered with a lighted match in hand, about to set fire to an empty classroom. Let us also imagine that neither the pupil nor the teacher would have been in any immediate danger from such an action. In those circumstances, is the teacher to be forced to resort to persuasion? Is the teacher to attempt to discover whether or not the boy is exempt before seizing hold of him to prevent the deed?
Let us remember that the general definition of corporal punishment is widely drawn. Opposition Members have made no complaint about the use of battery as the broad basis for that definition. But that needs to be tempered by common sense. It goes against reason to suppose that teachers can or should stand idly by while pupils do what they will to property, whether it is their own, their parents, or the school's.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment made: No. 7, in page 2, line 19, leave out 'section 2' and insert
'sections [exemption from corporal punishment not ground for suspension, etc.] and 2'—[Mr. Dunn.]

Mr. Dunn: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 24, leave out from 'school' to end of line 27 and insert
'maintained or assisted by a Minister of the Crown (including a school of which a government department is the proprietor) or assisted by a local education authority, being a school prescribed by regulations under section 2 of this Act or within a category so prescribed'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 9, in page 2, line 24, leave out from 'school' to end of line 27.
Government amendments Nos. 34 to 36.
No. 37, in clause 4, page 6, line 13, leave out from 'school' to end of line 14.

Mr. Dunn: An important principle underlying the Bill is that the exemptions scheme should extend to publicly funded school places. There is a relatively small number of places at independent schools that come within that description, but which are not caught by the present wording of clauses 1 and 4. The amendments close that

loophole and, in particular, would allow the Secretary of State, under regulations, to bring within the scheme United Kingdom schools owned and run by Government Departments. They would also allow the Secretary of State to act similarly with schools that are assisted by local education authorities under section 9 of the Education Act 1944.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister believe that any schools are excluded from the provision other than the independent schools that receive no state assistance?

Mr. Dunn: I believe that I am right in saying that, having listened to the concerns expressed to me by the hon. Gentleman, what we have now proposed will meet that position entirely. However, I am always open to listen to him or anyone else who believes that there are other schools involved, and would be pleased to have such schools brought to my attention.
I hope that the House will resist amendments Nos. 9 and 37. They attempt to bring independent schools into line with maintained schools. They seek to extend arrangements for exemption from corporal punishment to all pupils in independent schools, with no distinctions being made.
To consider that proposal, we need to look at the origins of the Bill. We have said plainly that the Bill arises from the case of Campbell and Cosans, heard in the European Court of Human Rights. The court's judgment was that the UK's education arrangements did not accord with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government have introduced the Bill so that those arrangements will accord with the convention. The Bill is not intended to go further than that.
We then need to ask ourselves whether, to meet that objective, we must bring all parents of all pupils within the scheme introduced by the Bill. The answer is no. We need not interfere with the generality of private contracts that are freely made between parents and independent schools. Most parents of children at independent schools have sent their children there because they wanted to do so, and the state is not directly responsible for the education of those children. The UK will therefore have discharged its obligations under the convention if, through the maintained sector, we have offered adequate provision that parents with philosophical convictions against corporal punishment can use if they so wish or desire.
The Government acknowledge, however, that there are cases involving independent schools where the state has assumed some direct responsibilities and where the new arrangements must be made, and clause 1 indentifies and caters for those cases. But they are a small minority, and in the main we need not and should not interfere with the private plans of parents who use the independent sector, or with independent schools which are well used to meeting the requirements of those who turn to them for the education of their children.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made; No. 13, in page 3, line 10, leave out 'section 2' and insert
'sections [exemption from corporal punishment not ground for suspension, etc.] and 2'—[Mr. Dunn.]

Mr. Dunn: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 3, leave out line 14 and insert
'teacher who works at the school and any other person who has lawful control or charge of the pupil and works there, and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 15, 40 and 41.

Mr. Dunn: In Standing Committee there was some concern that the wording of the Bill might indirectly increase the number of people who could claim to be acting in loco parentis. It was argued that broad references to any person working at a school might be taken to include employees such as caretakers or cleaners, who in the normal course of events would not have the care and control of children, and that there might be an assumption that such employees could readily and lawfully resort to corporal punishment.
It was not the Government's intention to change the existing position. We wish neither to increase nor to decrease the numbers who could claim to be acting in loco parentis. This series of amendments has been put forward to ease anxieties on that score. They make it plain that we are here dealing with teachers and others at school who have dealing with teachers and others at school who have lawful control or charge of pupils.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 15, in page 3, line 17, leave out from 'any' to end of line 19 and insert
'teacher employed by the authority who works at that place and any other person employed by the authority who has lawful control or charge of the pupil and works there'.—[Mr. Dunn.]

Clause 3

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISION

Mr. Dunn: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 4, line 27, after '1944', insert
'and section 231 of the Local Government Act 1972'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to consider at the same time Government amendments Nos. 24, 25, 44, 45, and 46.

Mr. Dunn: These amendments concern the service of documents on local authorities. At present, this is governed in England and Wales by section 231 of the Local Government Act 1972, which provides that documents are to be served by delivery or by posting to the authority's principal office or to any other office of the authority specified by it for the purpose. Section 190 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 makes similar provision for Scotland.
It is necessary to disapply those sections because, under the Bill and the regulations to be made under clause 2, parents of certain children will be serving a document on local authorities in the form of a return of their views. The children concerned are those in maintained nursery schools and those educated by an authority otherwise than at school, because in both cases the local authority will be the responsible body. In many instances it will be more convenient for parents to make the return direct to the nursery school or in some other way. This series of amendments makes it possible for the regulations to cover that point.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:

No. 24, in page 4, line 28, leave out 'does' and insert 'do'.

No. 25, in page 4, line 30, after 'school', insert
'or the local education authority'.

No. 26, in page 4, line 35, after 'that', insert

'section [exemption from corporal punishment not ground for suspension, etc.] of this Act or'.

No. 29, in page 4, line 41, leave out from '1984' to 'may' and insert
'this and the preceding sections and the Schedule to this Act'. —[Mr. Dunn.]

Clause 4

RESTRICTION ON CORPORAL PUNISHMENT OF PUPILS— SCOTLAND

Amendments made:

No. 33, in page 6, line 4, leave out 'section 48B' and insert 'sections 48B and 48D'.

No. 34, in page 6, line 7, leave out 'or'.

No. 35, in page 6, line 8, at end insert
'or (iii) at an independent school maintained or assisted by a Minister of the Crown being a school prescribed by regulations under section 48B of this Act or within a category so prescribed,'.

No. 36, in page 6, line 13, after 'school', insert
'not falling within paragraph (a)(iii) above'.

No. 39, in page 6, line 33, leave out 'section 48B' and insert 'sections 48B and 48D'.

No. 40, in page 6, line 37, leave out
'person working at the school'
and insert
'teacher who works at the school and any other person who has lawful control or charge of the pupil and works there'.

No. 41, in page 6, line 42, leave out from 'any' to end of line 44 and insert
'teacher employed by the authority who works at that place and any other person employed by the authority who has lawful control or charge of the pupil and works there.'.

No. 44, in page 8, line 1, after 'Act', insert
'and section 190 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973'.

No. 45, in page 8, line 2, leave out 'does' and insert 'do'.

No. 46, in page 8, line 4, after 'school', insert 'or the education authority'.

No. 47, in page 8, line 11, after 'are', insert
'or section 48D of this Act is,'.

No. 48, in page 8, line 11, at end insert—
'Exemption from corporal punishment not ground for exclusion, etc.

48D. A person shall not be debarred from receiving education in any circumstances (whether by refusing him admission to a school, excluding him from a school or otherwise) on the grounds that, if he were not so debarred in those circumstances, he would not be adequately amenable to discipline by reason of his being a pupil exempt from corporal punishment by members of the staff for the purposes of section 48A of this Act.".'.—[Mr. Dunn.]

Clause 7

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendments made:

No. 49, in page 9, line 7, after '1', insert
'[exemption from corporal punishment not ground for suspension, etc.]'.

No. 51, in page 9, line 11, leave out 'of' and insert
'and [exemption from corporal punishment not ground for suspension, etc.] of and the Schedule to'.—[Mr. Dunn.]

Mr. Dunn: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am delighted that we have reached this stage of the Bill. The measure had a short time in Standing Committee and has had a short, though exhaustive and detailed, consideration on Report today.
The Bill has always been concerned with parental rights. It gives parents a new right without taking away their existing ones. That new right is the ability to claim for their children exemption from corporal punishment at school. For any pupil covered by the Bill, either the parent or the school can seek such exemption, and the pupil then becomes exempt.
In short, the Bill assumes a partnership between parents and schools, and if either or both believe that corporal punishment is an inappropriate sanction for a pupil, the Bill gives the pupil protection against its use.
Opposition Members would have it otherwise, and they have never claimed anything different. They want neither parents nor schools, nor the two jointly, to have a say in the matter. The enforced abolition of corporal punishment is the only solution that they would accept. Nothing short of that would satisfy them. Parental and school views would be swept aside and legislation used to achieve a universal ban on reasonable and moderate corporal punishment.
I am glad to say that the Government are not prepared to go down that road. If parents and those who provide education take the view that corporal punishment is necessary, the law should not be used to prevent that view from prevailing.
Some local education authorities impose a ban on corporal punishment. The Bill will have a neutral impact — the minimum possible — on that situation. Indeed, under the Bill, local education authorities which have the legal right to impose such a ban on their schools will retain that right. However, that is different from the imposition of a ban by central Government through legislation.
If a local authority were to change hands, particularly from Labour to Conservative—as will happen in many authorities on 2 May — it will be a matter for the authority to decide on a code of discipline and to discuss, within the various chambers available to it, the form that such discipline should take.
My expectation is that parents will welcome this new right and will exercise it responsibly. I hope that parents and schools will co-operate so that, in the end, discipline and standards of behaviour improve.
The Bill has been criticised on a number of grounds. It has been said that it is impractical or unfair, or that it does not go far enough. As the House knows, our view is that it may not be the ideal solution. To me, the ideal would have been to leave things as they were, largely unregulated by statute. That, I am afraid, was not possible. The court found us in breach of the European convention on human rights and we cannot pick and choose the judgments with which we comply.
If we accept that position, the Bill is the best that we can achieve in the circumstances. Other solutions—the enforced abolition of corporal punishment or a dual system of schools, some with and some without corporal punishment—have major drawbacks. Of course, I reject completely the accusations of impracticability and unfairness.
There will be differences in the way in which pupils are treated, but there are now. Adjacent schools may have different policies, and pupils in the same school are often treated differently. Sometimes girls are exempted from corporal punishment while boys are not. Sometimes those with emotional problems are exempted, as may be delicate

pupils. Fairness does not always entail identical treatment. What matters is that those who deserve punishment should receive it and that those who cannot be corporally punished should, and must, be disciplined in some other way.
My view is that the critics of the Bill have, as usual, over-reacted. An exemption scheme can work and can be consistent with the maintenance of good order and discipline in schools. It is therefore with pleasure that I commend the Bill to the House. I am delighted that the measure has reached this stage, and I hope that it will receive an unopposed Third Reading.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I was amazed to hear the Minister say that he had pleasure in commending the Bill to the House. I should have thought that most people would agree that we were close to a farce with this piece of legislation. I pointed out on Second Reading that the Government were on a hiding to nothing with it and I have heard nothing since then which should give the Government confidence in the Bill.
I notice that between Second Reading and now the Secretary of State has seen fit to distance himself from the measure. I do not blame him for not being here today. I would not want to be putting forward a measure as farcical as this. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman does not want to be known as "abolition Joseph." Presumably, however, he is happy for it to be known as "abolition Dunn's Bill." In practice, it will turn out to be so impractical and unfair that corporal punishment will be abolished in the vast majority of schools and will be retained only by the bad and inefficient ones.
I was surprised to hear the Minister say that we had to do it because of the judgment of the court but that it would not be done until 1986. If we must take this step, the Government should have taken it earlier. My real regret, however, is that the Government have missed a great opportunity for there to have been a proper debate of the whole question of discipline in schools. We should be getting across to youngsters the need for self-discipline. We should not be running the education system on the basis that we must force pupils to do things. We should be aiming at getting pupils to do things because they want to do so. Our aim should be self-discipline for pupils. The schools should discuss carefully their regimes and methods of teaching in trying to arrive at the ideal of imposing the majority of discipline in schools through self-discipline rather than by means of a punishment system.
The Bill will not work as the Government intend and they will have to return quickly with another measure. If they do not another Government, a Labour Government, will have to bring in a simple abolition Bill and thereby remove the farcical measure which the Government are insisting on pushing through.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I cannot say that I welcome the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, it will place our schools in a difficult position. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is entitled to say that he welcomes the Bill on the basis that it is the best measure that can be put before the House in all the circumstances, which make it impossible to give the schools a clear direction. The Bill cannot be welcomed as a measure that will improve school discipline and education. However,


it is important that we have avoided the abolition of corporal punishment. It would be wrong to abolish it without a great deal more thought than any of the abolitionists have given to the issue. I include in that comment the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench, the Labour party generally and many outside. It is unfortunate that the abolitionists have not considered the options that would face us if abolition were to become a reality.
It is unfortunate also that the options have not been thought through for the child whose parents have said that they will not accept corporal punishment. The options have not been argued out in schools or in the education world generally. The schools will face a difficult task in handling pupils who will need to be punished as a result of bad behaviour and who may not be punished with the cane or an equivalent instrument because their parents have refused permission.
The Bill, as amended, will unquestionably affect school discipline at a time when our schools have a greater than ever responsibility for improving national behaviour in the long term. There is no doubt in my mind that much of the violence that we have seen at soccer matches, for example, will not disappear or be lessened as a result of the Bill. That is greatly to be regretted.
A Bill that will deal successfully with corporal punishment and any other form of school discipline should be welcomed as the basis for long-term improvement in school discipline and the means of real reform. The aim of such a measure should be to ensure that children are more interested on leaving school in remaining self-disciplined and law-abiding. Unfortunately, the Bill will not help in that direction. I am not saying that it will do deep harm but it will be responsible for some damage. I am sure that that cannot be denied.
Will the Bill help to end soccer violence and burglaries, for example? Will it help teachers to restrain the child who is behaving in a maladjusted fashion although he is not basically maladjusted? Will it help parents to feel that the school has the equipment to handle their children in all moods and in meeting all their behavioural problems? I am not sure that it will be capable of meeting any of those needs. The behaviour of children stems partly from their own character and personality and partly from peer group pressure and their relationships with one another. I believe that the Bill will make life more difficult for teachers, schools and children. Children who commit identical offences are likely to be punished differently in some circumstances. That will create impossible inequalities within schools. That is my basic objection to the Bill, which I expressed on Second Reading, and the amendments have not remedied this major defect.
It is good that parents will have a say by law in the discipline of their children. They have not had that right before and this feature of the Bill is one that should be welcomed. There will be a requirement to consult parents on their attitude towards corporal punishment. Hitherto, the law has not required parents to be consulted on their attitude to anything very much in the schooling of their children. The Bill offers this considerable plus and my hon. Friend the Minister was right to welcome the improvement. However, it is a pity that the law of the land is to be involved in school discipline. Currently, local authorities, schools and head teachers have had sole responsibility, with teachers, for the maintenance of school discipline. It has been accepted nationally that teachers should act in loco parentis. That role will be

substantially altered when the Bill is enacted. That is a matter for regret when it is set against the strong tradition of the teacher acting to the best of his ability in loco parentis. It is a tradition which has stood the country, the education system and parents in good stead over a long period.
It is unfortunate that the Bill will mean that equal misdemeanours may attract different punishments. The unfairness of the inequality of treatment will undoubtedly irritate children seriously and gravely. Delicate children, maladjusted children and ordinary children with no behavioural problems have not been treated equally throughout the school system since 1872. Those with education difficulties and special needs have, when punished been treated differently from those with no difficulties.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave the impression that he welcomed the fact that children with education difficulties and those with no difficulties will be treated equally when the Bill is enacted. If the Bill is to have that effect, it should not be welcomed. It is obvious that delicate children are different from robust children. Maladjusted children are clearly different from those who are not. The children in these and other categories should be handled differently and punished in different ways. I hope that I have not misrepresented my hon. Friend. If I have, perhaps he will take up the matter when he replies. This is a fundamental issue and it would not be responsible for me, with such long experience in education, to let the matter pass without taking it up.
I hope that the Bill will not be the thin end of the wedge. Corporal punishment is valuable and should remain. School discipline should aim towards self-discipline for children both at school and afterwards. Self-discipline occurs as a result of a firm structure at school and at home at crucial ages in a child's life. If the Bill ensures that there is a firm structure of discipline that all people concede is fair, children may want to behave in a self-disciplined manner.
I do not welcome an attack on the position of the teacher, and especially the head, acting in loco parentis. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on his skill in handling this measure, but I hope that he will say that the line has been drawn and that we will go no further in attacking the principle of the teacher and especially the head acting in loco parentis. I hope that the people will understand what is being done and that matters will work out satisfactorily. I hope that it will turn out all right in the end. My fingers will be firmly crossed.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who, like me, is a former teacher, has put his finger on the obvious flaws in the Bill. Conservative Members do not believe in what they have been saying. They know that, in time, they will have to abolish corporal punishment, but the idea sticks in their craws. They have built a house of cards that will collapse.
The legislation places schools in difficulty. Schools already have registers, but they will have to place parents, teachers and children in extreme difficulty because registers of those who will be caned and those who will not be caned must be formed. Those entries will follow the students throughout their education at school. Practically every word spoken by Conservative Members proves that they know that this is impossible. Anyone who stands over


a child with a cane is in a bankrupt position. Teachers with canes in their hands stand not in loco parentis but in "loco draconis". They are trying to terrify children and are thereby closing the channels of learning. It is utter nonsense to think that caning does the slightest good. Any teacher knows that the same children are caned all the time. It is claptrap to think that a child who is caned will never act wrongly again.
Reference has been made to sin bins and withdrawal places. Almost all the children who have gone into the withdrawal places after doing something wrong have been caned previously, probably scores of times. It is untrue to say that only a little caning occurs, because Britain is one of the last countries where children are caned.
Caning means that teachers are placed on a stage with children, some of whom are very young. The Bill gives a young male teacher the right to cane a woman who is almost 18 years old. That is so silly it is unbelievable. If Conservatives examined this matter properly, they would know that it is silly.
Corporal punishment in schools is unworkable. It is the worst of both worlds. It is not a last resort. The teacher who canes often uses caning as a first resort. Sometimes every child in a class is caned, with a small group being caned frequently. It is nonsense to say that caning is not carried out on a large scale. It must be done away with.
Our society is pregnant with violence because of the inequality and alienation of young people. We shall soon have to discuss discipline in schools because it is linked directly with what has happened at Luton, Millwall and so on. Violence occurs because a large number of young people are not working. Conservatives say that we have the best system on earth, but they do not know how to work it.
As soon as corporal punishment is abolished in schools where there has been violence, violence against teaching staff decreases. In schools where there is much caning, there is often violence against the staff.
The Government do not know what to do, so they have proposed this monstrous and nasty little Bill as a halfway house. It is not a halfway house but a 99.9 per cent. way house. The legislation will not work. Teachers and parents will demand its repeal and will wonder why a reputedly intelligent and adult people have proposed such an abortion. That is exactly what this nasty little Bill is, and, in time, we shall get rid of it.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am one of those who think that this is an appalling Bill. I should appreciate hearing the views of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on a number of points. I apologise for not having been present earlier. I had a constituency engagement and understood that we would not be debating the Bill until 10 pm. Obviously, my colleagues made splendid progress with the earlier legislation.
I believe that everyone is fully aware that education authorities are under enormous financial pressure. Under the Bill, notification must be given to parents. It is suggested that costs will be limited because schools are already in touch regularly with children. I assure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that none of my three children receives notification from the schools at any time by post. We certainly received notification by post when

the children were entered at school, but since then we have received no postal communications. We receive many small letters which are handed to the children to bring home. Will it be possible under this legislation to hand out forms to children to bring them home to their parents? I doubt whether that is contemplated in the regulations. Postal notification is required.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State must accept that sending a letter to every parent in every maintained school in England and Wales will cost a great deal. How much will it cost? Is that a fair burden to impose on the education authorities which are starved of cash, for reasons that are obvious to us all?
How often will the schools have to send the notification? Is it once per year or once in the lifetime of the child in the school? If it is to be sent regularly, I suggest that the cost will be substantial. We are all aware that because of the way our society has developed, unfortunately, many children come from one-parent homes. Many children are living with their mothers, or fathers or a strange combination of people who are not their mothers and fathers. We know that nowadays there are many broken homes and that many children live in unstable relationships. Is there an obligation to send a postal notification to each of the natural parents? If there is, the work load will be substantial and the cost horrific. Will it mean that all the children or their parents will have to notify the school of the names and addresses of their natural parents? Will the schools have to take that information from all parents?
Those are some points about which my hon. Friend has a duty to tell the House and the education authorities. Will there have to be a postal notification? Does the Minister accept that schools do not send letters by post to parents at present? Will the notification have to be made annually or once only in the child's school life? Will the notification have to be sent to each of the natural parents? Will that mean that the schools keeping a note of the natural parents?
Clause 1(7) relates to assisted places. Will my hon. Friend say what happens about these?

Mr. Key: He has, at great length.

Mr. Taylor: Does that mean that independent schools have an obligation to send letters to natural parents?
My next point, which is important, is about the general principle of deterrence. Has there been any information on that, because our only experience of the operation of the European court on corporal punishment is the court's decision on corporal punishment for criminals in the Isle of Man. Before we proceed further with the legislation, my hon. Friend should attempt to read the annual reports of the chief constable of the Isle of Man from 1979 when corporal punishment had to abolished. He will see that there is a clear connection between crime and the abolition of corporal punishment.
My next point has been dealt with on Second Reading and in Committee. It relates to justice. I do not see that it be just, fair and reasonable for children engaged in the same exercise to be punished differently.
There is a further important point. Does my hon. Friend believe that the Bill will lead to an expansion of what is already a serious problem in schools—the increase in the number of children suspended or excluded from schools? I had a visit on Saturday from a constituent whose


child, aged 14, was suspended from school in November 1984 and expelled at the end of the month. That child has had no education since from school or private tuition. He has been at home.
There is a danger that if we proceed with this legislation there will be a substantial increase in the number of pupils suspended or expelled because of the absence of corporal punishment. There will be a number of children staying at home and not receiving education.
The most vital issue is that this unsatisfactory Bill—the Government accept that it is unsatisfactory — is introduced not because of a decision of this Parliament, or the determination of pupils, parents or teachers, but merely because of the European court's decision. I take the view, as I am sure most people do, that parents and teachers are in a far better position than elderly European judges to make decisions about the conduct of discipline in our schools. I should prefer it if judges were given the opportunity to look after a class of 14-year-olds before they issued such ridiculous judgments.
When the European convention was drawn up it was detennined—this is clear from the reading of it—that it was interested in the protection of basic human rights against torture and so on. As with all written constitutions, the court has endeavoured, step by step, to extend the convention's remit. The court has extended it more and more. I should be happier if, instead of proceeding with the legislation, the Government were to call together the signatories of the European convention to see whether there were some way to stop the court extending its powers into matters for which the convention was not designed.
I am convinced that if the legislation goes through it will lead inevitably and quickly to the disappearance of corporal punishment from all except the independent schools. That will be a retrograde step. To bring in the Bill without clear help and advice to teachers about how alternative and satisfactory discipline can be introduced is dangerous when teaching morale, as we are all aware, is low. A number of teachers find great difficulty in coping with all that they have to at present.
The Bill is a big mistake. I should prefer it to be scrapped and for the Government to meet the signatories of the European convention to see whether there is some way in which we could get together to limit the appalling way that the European court is, step by step, taking more power from what was originally designed to be a limited document.
If anything good comes out of the legislation, it will be that the people of Great Britain will be reminded of the extent to which decision making has been taken away from us and transferred to a number of European courts that make foolish decisions which cause a great deal of damage to our country and, in this case, to our education.

Mr. Freud: There are some ways in which I agree with the sentiments of the hon. Members for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). I regret that we have the Bill and that we did not leave things as they were. I regret the fact that the court in Strasbourg did not concentrate on the more serious aspect of human rights instead of playing about with minor corporal punishment. I regret the fact that we did not take the opportunity to stop corporal punishment altogether. I regret the Government's approach which is pock-marked with ambiguities and is

designed not to promote discipline in schools but to discipline their Back Benchers. I regret the fact that the Minister speaks of partnership. He seems genuinely to believe that signing a piece of paper is a manifestation of partnership.
The White Paper "Better Schools" has a section on discipline which makes more sense than what we have heard from the Minister and the Secretary of State. It states:
Many schools consistently secure good order. They do so not simply by a regime of sanctions and rewards but more broadly by creating within the school a tone which makes for constructively purposeful activity. They attempt to create positive attitudes towards good behaviour in all that they do. The teachers themselves set an example; and in their relationships with parents, pupils and each other seek to demonstrate as well as to encourage high standards of conduct, in the awareness that adult society does not always reflect and support those standards. Often the teachers' success is attributable to the consistency with which they encourage in their pupils good behaviour and the habit of self-discipline and not simply to a particular teaching style or set of rules.
It is really quite liberal of the White Paper to write of boredom as a factor contributing to bad discipline, but to think that corporal punishment has anything to do with this seems to me quite astonishing. This is what I mean by anachronisms and ambiguities.
It takes one aspect of discipline in isolation. The Department of Education and Science has taken no account of information on schools and areas which manage without corporal punishment. It has taken no account of factors like the participation of pupils, which David Hargreaves, the guru to the Inner London education authority and also the author of the influential report "Improving Secondary Schools", took to be a major factor in the absence of graffiti and violence in some London schools.
Corporal punishment does not equal discipline. The White Paper understands this, so why are we wasting our time on this Bill, which is a mere sideshow to the real issues of discipline and good order and helping to foster good pupils? We who are trying to curb a violent society cannot—certainly we should not—be going to these lengths to legalise and give a modicum of respectability to the infliction of physical abuse on children, though few of us are opposed to teachers acting, as they will, in loco parentis, provided that the other manifestations of parental care are observed. It is for this reason that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I think that this Bill is a complete irrelevance and has wasted the time of the House.

Mr. Key: I said on Second Reading that we could expect to hear arguments from the anti-European lobby. In fact, we did not hear those arguments. Tonight, however, we have heard some of those arguments, albeit at a late stage in the proceedings. I pointed out also at Second Reading that I believe this to be an expedient and dotty Bill. During Committee, Report and Third Reading that view has been enforced. It is an expedient and dotty Bill. However, I should like to end on a positive note.
I believe that the Bill is not really about heating children. It is about the social framework of our schools and communities. While listening to this debate and to points which have been raised on previous occasions I have been depressed by the fact that we have heard about the prejudices of the past concerning discipline. Hon. Members have said that during their childhood they would


have preferred a short, sharp caning to being deprived of games or put in detention, which they believe would have been far more effective. In fact, they prove the case of the abolitionists.
However, we have also learned about the diversity of practice in our educational system, undoubtedly one of its greatest strengths. The diversity of the response of teachers, parents and governors is magnificent. Nevertheless, those hon. Members who attended independent schools should not assume that, 40 years later, attitudes to discipline are the same as they were when they attended school. Hon. Members and members of another place should be aware of the wind of change that has been blowing through the Headmasters Conference. Corporal punishment is a lively issue there. We are being asked to consider, as a matter of great responsibility on the part of parents, teachers and governors, the need to debate the social framework of our schools and communities. At last Parliament has begun to discuss the issue and take a lead. I hope that there will be more of an opportunity to discuss the issue in the future than there has been in the past.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I am not sure whether my admiration for the Government in getting this measure debated in an empty House at this time of the night is as great as my regret that the Government have done so. The fact that this debate was to take place today was made known just before the House went into recess. Very few hon. Members were then aware of what would be happening tonight. When they were notified of what would be happening tonight they thought that it would be after 10 o'clock. This is a controversial measure. It is a measure which many hon. Members, certainly many Conservative Members, are fundamentally against. Many hon. Members would no doubt have liked to be here to debate the issue. It is evident that proceedings on the Bill will be completed before 10 o'clock. Therefore, many of my hon. Friends who were most concerend about this measure will be deprived — I mean that — of the opportunity—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I am listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman. This is the Third Reading, which means that we are discussing the contents of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get to it quickly.

Mr. Marlow: My point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that many of my hon. Friends are deeply concerned about the contents of the Bill but as you know, and as the House know, they will no now have the opportunity to put forward their points.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: They should have been here if they are so concerned.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman says that they should have been here if they are so concerned. My hon. Friends would have been here had they been able to be here. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that because of the way that business is brought forward in this House it is not always possible for hon. Members to change their plans at the last minute. We are told, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is a human rights matter. If this country is to reach

a decision on human rights, I believe that the House of Commons, whose Members are elected by their constituents to represent their views, is a far better place to decide the human rights of the people of Britain than a foreign court with foreign judges who know nothing about the customs—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is discussing something that is not in the Bill. He must address himself to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Marlow: With your forgiveness, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Bill has been imposed on the House of Commons because of a ruling by a European court. It is not brought forward by the free will of this Government or by the free will of this House. It has been imposed on us. That which is contained in the Bill is highly criticised by many of my hon. Friends. We are concerned with human rights and with the education of our children. Many of our children are suffering from a level of education to which we do not aspire because of the lack of discipline. I am not a strong advocate of corporal punishment. I am not a great flogger. However, it is said that in a civilised society such as ours there should be no corporal punishment. If we were a civilised society in all the respects that are envisaged that might be true, but sadly that is not the case. In many of the blackboard jungles of our inner city areas the staff face great problems in imposing discipline and believe that there is a need for corporal punishment. We are taking corporal punishment away from them because of the ruling of a foreign court. By taking away corporal punishment we are reducing the educational opportunities of many of our most disadvantaged children. If we are concerned about civil liberties and human rights, we ought to be concerned about the human rights of those children.
As for the assisted places scheme, there may already be five or 10 pupils in a school under the assisted places scheme whose parents have said that corporal punishment is the custom and practice in that school and that they accept it. However, what happens if another child gains an assisted place in that school and his parents say that they do not want corporal punishment to be inflicted on their child and the headmaster or the governors then say to those parents, "We are sorry, but there has been a mistake. If your child will not accept corporal punishment, we are afraid that he cannot come here."? We know what will happen. Public money is made available, and it will have to be withdrawn. If that public money is withdrawn, what will happen to the five or 10 children who are already in the school? Do they lose their assisted places? Is that what will happen? Will they be thrown out of the school because a newcomer is not prepared to accept corporal punishment?
If we are in favour of human rights, I put it to the House that the human rights of those children, the liberty of the individual, and the freedom of those children, are being interfered with to a far greater extent by the Bill than if we chucked it out. That is what I believe we should do.

Mr. Dunn: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the points that have been made.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and for Salisbury (Mr.


Key) and the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).
The debate, the temperature of which has risen considerably in the last few moments, has been one of great vigour and determination. We have had many debates on several of the points that were raised tonight. I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North that I had no part in the collapse of earlier business, which prevented him and other hon. Members on both sides of the House from being in their places. There may be those who are concerned about the Bill who have not arrived, and many great supporters of the Bill might have been unable to be present because of the collapse of business. Had I had the opportunity to choose whether to have the debate earlier or later, I would have preferred it to take place later so that I could canvass in my constituency for the Kent county council elections on 2 May. That had been my intention.

Mr. Giles Radice: Is the hon. Gentleman worried about the result?

Mr. Dunn: I have no anxieties whatsoever, but I am always concerned to keep out the forces of evil and destruction in the form of the Labour party, and, of course, the alliance. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman was born in Kent, I am surprised that he is on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not in the Bill, either.

Mr. Dunn: I was not going to suggest that it should be, either. Opposition Members have referred to the standard of behaviour in schools, which is important. The development of self-discipline—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that it is insufferable for the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) to come in and lecture us about discipline, when he cannot even stay to hear the Minister wind up?

Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, who is now back again, told me that he might have to leave during my speech—not because of my speech, but because he had a prior engagement with constituents elsewhere. [HON. MEMBERS: "But he has come back."] Perhaps my hon. Friend has a bit more time than he thought he had. He informed me of that. I am sure that no discourtesy to the House was intended. I certainly did not take it as a discourtesy.
Self-discipline is a significant objective for many young people and for those who come into contact with them. Schools have traditionally accepted the part that they have to play in that development. If the Bill encourages schools to look again at the way in which they approach discipline —I believe it will—that will be a positive step forward. I hope that it will lead to a closer understanding between school and home, and encourage involvement and support by parents, which schools need in disciplinary matters.
The view has been expressed that the schools most affected by the Bill will be those in which the staff have relied heavily on corporal punishment. For them there may have to be a major shift in emphasis, and it may take a little time. However, many schools have demonstrated that changes can be made without any increase in disorder and

disruption. As the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East said, other sanctions can be used. As our recent White Paper on better schools said, there is scope for schools to offer more opportunities for pupils to acquire the habit of self-discipline. Schools can do a great deal to encourage and reward high standards of conduct without becoming dependent on any single sanction, no matter how necessary it might be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North referred to the damage that the Bill might do to the concept of in loco parentis. He knows from his vast experience in the education service over many years that the in loco parentis concept is broad, and is not undermined by the Bill. The concept underlies activities of all teachers in England and Wales. In Scotland the law is different, and teachers have similar vested powers. It means that, while the children are with the teacher, the teacher is responsible for their care and control. That places on teachers a wide legal obligation to look after them as a responsible parent would. More generally, teachers usually see their in loco parentis obligations as extending beyond the legal duties of care and control to a general concern with the personal and social development of pupils. Teachers do not simply offer lessons. They educate in the widest sense, and are much concerned with all aspects of behaviour. There is no reason why the Bill should disturb that approach to the teachers' functions.
My hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North and for Southend, East referred to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. The House knows, because it was said so many times in Committee and earlier debates, that our obligations in that respect date back to 1951 when the Government of the day accepted the court's jurisdiction in cases brought by another state and where the prior agreement of this country had been obtained. In 1966, the then Government accepted the right of individuals to make complaints under the convention. That acceptance has been renewed by successive Governments. The latest renewal was in January 1981, for five years.
In the case of Campbell and Cosans the court ruled against the United Kingdom Government despite the views of the United Kingdom judge, Sir Vincent Evans. However, in other cases we have had cause to approve of its rulings. In the case of Handyside v. United Kingdom in 1976, for example, the court supported the decision of the authorities in this country who took action against an individual under the Obscene Publications Act 1964. Handyside had produced an underground book for schoolchildren, one long section of which was devoted to sexual matters. He subsequently brought a complaint against the United Kingdom under the convention. The court rejected the complaint. We all applaud that ruling.
In the closed shop case of Young, James and Webster v. United Kingdom, the court ruled in 1981 in favour of three British Rail employees who were dismissed as a result of a closed shop agreement. Opposition Members may not have liked the ruling, but it was important and, for me and my hon. Friends, it was a wholly satisfactory outcome. We should also remember that the Commission rejects many applications against the United Kingdom before they ever reach the court.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept, in fairness, that both those items, which admittedly are controversial, could have been resolved by legislation of the United Kingdom Parliament?

Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend may be right on that matter, but I must say what the position is and not what it might have been.
My hon. Friend raised several questions, which I shall now attempt to answer. He referred to the assisted places scheme. The same obligations will apply to those schools that partake in the assisted places scheme as will apply to maintained schools. My hon. Friend also referred to the number of pupils who might be suspended from school in future should the application of corporal punishment cease. It is sometimes argued that corporal punishment is a sanction of last resort and if it cannot be used, another more dramatic sanction must be found. It is also argued that suspension from school is such a sanction and will be the natural alternative.
There are weaknesses in both arguments. In the main, the cane is not a sanction of last resort. It is not reserved for the very worst offences. Mostly it is used as a quick response to an unacceptable though relatively minor offence. The alternative is not necessarily a draconian measure. It is more likely to be some other quick and simple punishment. One of the best alternatives is probably the withdrawal of rewards and privileges. In any case, suspension should not be a disciplinary sanction. It is not in itself a punishment. It is a temporary means of relieving pressure in schools and of involving parents. Pupils have to be got back in school, or in some extreme cases to a unit, at the earliest opportunity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East raised a number of questions about the mechanics of canvassing parental views. I am sure that my hon. Friend, like most

good parents, periodically visits his children's schools to discuss the children's academic propensities and future. On such occasions parents can and will be given the necessary form. Parents of new pupils may be given the form when they visit the school for the first time. In the case of the many parents who, sadly, choose not to visit the school, the form will be sent by post.
The question of periodic renewal will not arise, as there will be one form to cover the pupil's period of attendance at the school—although parents will, of course, have the right to change their minds.
My hon. Friend also referred to broken homes and different types of parental influence. The form will always be sent to the child's home address. My hon. Friend has various ways of making his pressure felt and no doubt he will see me if he wants further elaboration.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend said that the form will be posted to the child's home address. Is he therefore saying that it will not necessarily be sent to the parents, although if they happen to live at that address that is well and good? It is very important that we should be clear about that.

Mr. Dunn: The views to be canvassed are those of the people legally responsible for the child's welfare. I think that I have stated the position correctly, but I will look into the matter and if I feel that my answer was in any way misleading, I will write to my hon. Friend.
We have had a very good-tempered debate and I am delighted to have reached this stage of the Bill's progress. I thank hon. Members on both sides who have taken part in the debates both in the House and in Committee, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Something seems to have prevented Members from being present to discuss this Bill, too. It is purely a consolidation measure which gathers together the provisions concerning reinstatement in civil employment of members of the reserve and auxiliary forces on completion of a period of whole-time service and the protection of the employment of those liable to such service.
The Bill has been considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills and, as ever, we are most grateful to that Committee for its labours. The Committee was content that the Bill, incorporating one amendment suggested by the Committee, constituted pure consolidation.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Post Offices (South-East District)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey): Happily, we have more time than expected, so this may be the first of two Adjournment debates. I wish to bring to a wider forum the arguments for keeping open two of London's most important post offices. The first day of a new parliamentary term is an appropriate time for such a battle to protect local services. At this very moment at the other end of the building, in the other place, a much more comprehensive debate is taking place about local government and services in the capital and in the metropolitan counties, encompassing most of the great urban areas of England.
It is proposed to close south-east London's main post office, situated on Borough high street opposite the tube station and just down the road from St. George's church in the centuries-old borough of Southwark. It is also proposed to close the Bermondsey Crown post office just down Great Dover street, better known as the Pilgrim's Way—the old London-Dover road which the Canterbury pilgrims trod—and visible to the left of the Bricklayers Arms roundabout and flyover.
Both are urban post office of substantial importance, and the debate about their future began last May when a document entitled "The Post Office Counters Network: A strategy for the future" was produced by the Post Office and provoked a very worried and hostile reaction. The document set out proposals for counter services—not the giro service, but that part of the service which, with the mail service, is what people traditionally think of as the post office service.
Paragraph 4.8 on page 9 of that document states that the Post Office
has therefore decided
—to assure customers that 95 per cent. of the total counter network (taking town and country together) will remain until April 1987, and to consider, after local consultation and in the context of cost reduction and marketing programmes, the number of closures that are necessary within the remaining 5 per cent.
—where the Post Office is forced to close an office due to its inability to recruit a suitable subpostmaster … such an office could re-open in the future if and when a suitable candidate did appear.
—within the 5 per cent. the Post Office will close or regrade to sub-office status about 70 Crown Offices which are failing to generate sufficient revenue to cover their direct costs.
Two types of post office are thus involved. Sub-post offices are not staffed by Post Office workers. They are run under an agency agreement by an independent person or persons. The Crown offices, however, are staffed by Post Office employees and constitute what people regard as main post offices. I shall concentrate on the closure of Crown offices, but it is sensible first to put this specific debate into the general perspective of earlier debates on the Post Office service as a whole. The Minister will recall the general debate about three months ago, but I firmly believe that whatever his arguments in that context the case is clearly made out for keeping the specific offices to which this debate relates.
The Post Office annual report for 1983–84 stated that there were 1,559 Crown offices in Britain and 20,499 sub-post offices. In London, there were 367 Crown offices and 1,405 sub-post offices. The postal region of London


stretches beyond Greater London into Hertfordshire, Essex and Surrey. For administrative purposes it is divided into districts. Tonight we are considering the south-east district. The hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) is here to represent his end of the borough of which I represent the north. The south-east district runs from Westminster bridge to Thamesmead and South Norwood. It is probably the largest London postal district. At the beginning of the exercise, it contained 33 Crown post offices and 159 sub-post offices.
Southwark—to reduce the scale again—contains 18 Crown offices and 40 sub-post offices, and my constituency contains six Crown offices and 18 sub-post offices. Whatever the scale may be, there is a balance; and a balance of services is provided.
I want to consider the proposals for closing Crown offices. The argument is about the balance between commerce and services — between the need to bear commercial considerations in mind and the duty to serve, both of which are imposed by legislation upon the Post Office. If the Minister is honest enough to listen to the figures and the arguments, he will have to accept that on both those grounds, in relation to the two offices under consideration, the argument is made out.
Last August the district postmasters, who had been given power to do so, announced the proposed closures of sub-post offices. On 19 October, together with other interested parties in Southwark and south-east London, I received information about proposed Crown office closures.
In Britain as a whole — only urban areas will be affected —78 Crown offices out of 1,559 were to be closed. Nine hundred sub-post offices were to be closed, out of 20,499. In other words, about 5 per cent. in each category were to be closed. As has been said, when one's local post office is closed, one loses not 5 per cent. of the service but all of it. That, certainly, is the general belief in the area that I am talking about.
In London, it was proposed that 30 Crown offices out of 367 and 80 sub-post offices out of 1,405, should be closed. South-east London was to lose two Crown offices out of 33 and 18 sub-post offices out of 159. I do not know whether the fates considered these factors, but the two Crown offices chosen were both in Southwark, both in my constituency, and close together. I am here to address the Minister on behalf of a massive community. He has some powers and cannot wash his hands of responsibility, Pilate-like, despite the distance from Government at which the Post Office now operates.
The two offices must be considered together. If both are closed, the business must go to adjacent offices. If one is closed, the business is likely to go the other. There is a substantial risk that the Government, through the Post Office, will lose postal business altogether if these proposals are adopted.
The proposals were made last autumn. Consultations were then embarked on and continued until early this year. The criteria for consultation raise an important point to which I shall shortly turn. Consultation is now over at district level. In spite of unanimous and enormous opposition from every agency consulted, the recommendation of the district postmaster, Mr. Line, to the regional director, then Mr. Brown, was that the offices should be closed, as in the original proposal. That recommendation

is at present on the desk of the director of the London region. Although in name it is the regional director who makes the decision, the recommendation must have the approval of the chairman of the Post Office, Sir Ronald Dearing, or of the board member responsible for counter services, if the undertakings given are to be carried out. Consultation at that level has still to take place.
Mr. Brown assured me before he left that he would meet my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) and myself to discuss the matter. He had already had consultations with Conservative and Labour Members in London, and we would have been the third group to be seen. I make no complaint about that. That meeting has still to take place. The change of director does not obviate the need for that consultation, and I hope that the present debate will have helped to clarify the arguments.
The recommendation is on the table. Tonight's debate is opportune because the decision has not yet been made. The House has built up a head of steam on the issue. At the beginning of the Session many hon. Members signed early-day motion 156 which dealt mainly with sub-post offices. On 19 December, during the debate on the Christmas Adjournment, many hon. Members on both sides of the House requested the Leader of the House to provide Government time for a debate.
The Government eventually decided that they could not provide time. There was great regret in the House and the feeling that we had been deprived by the Government and that, because of the Government's decision to impose commercial restraints upon the Post Office, the closures would take place. There was opposition from Government Back Benchers as well as from Opposition Members such as myself. On 23 January we had a debate in Opposition time. No doubt the Minister will refer to the points that he made during that debate. The Government have imposed financial targets upon the Post Office, and the Post Office must comply. The Minister does not have much control over the matter.
In my view, the arguments are clearly against the closure of the two offices. However, I also believe that the arguments adduced by the Minister on 23 January did not answer the question how one defines the necessary provision of services. The pressure to close the head office counter has continued. With the support of many others, I tabled early-day motion 405 stating that it was wrong to close the two offices in my constituency on service and commercial grounds. The protest has all-party support. I hope that the Government will heed that fact.
The district postmaster told me a few months ago that he would make his decision in spite of the protest and he described the reaction to his proposals as total, vociferous and hostile. He said that he expected that, not least because the people of Southwark are well known for wanting to fight for their rights. I am glad that they are, but a total, vociferous and hostile response is not much good if nobody takes the blindest notice. Rights must be respected as well as fought for. Community organisations, tenants, owner-occupiers, unions, businesses, the chamber of commerce, churches, pensioners, young parents and members of every political party—I even had a letter of support from the Southwark and Bermondsey Conservative association, which might not be the largest in Britain—have said that the head office must not be closed. They also want the Post Office workers to keep their jobs. The service is not perfect and those workers


should be retained so that the service might be improved. I bet that the Minister does not get many letters saying that the Post Office is wonderful. Rather I suspect that he receives complaints about late deliveries and lost mail. Those criticisms are criticisms not of the workers but of the lack of employees and investment.
The code of practice which was agreed between the Post Office and the Post Office Users' National Council in May 1981 and amended in January 1984 describes what consultation should mean. It says:
"1. The Head Postmaster (in conjunction with the Regional Director) will initiate plans to close or change the status of Crown Offices as part of his ongoing commitment to review all operations under his control.
2. He will take account of such factors as:

—the financial effect
—the nature of the area
—the productivity of the office
—how the change would affect the operation of the mail service
—any redundancy problems
—disposal of the buildings
—the likely growth of the area

If he is contemplating outright closure, he will also take into account the factors outlined in paragraph 2 of the section on sub offices and additionally the question of proximity of offices able to undertake those items of business which may not be available at the nearest sub office".
Those factors are:
The distance from other offices … The amount of business done. The type of business done (eg, are a lot of pensions paid) The difficulty customers would face in getting to another office … The ability of nearby offices to absorb additional work. The likely future development of the area.
With only one hint of weakness, the case for retaining the post offices can be made on all of those grounds.
If the Minister says that this is nothing to do with him, I shall have to remind him of section 11(2) of the Post Office Act 1969 which provides:
If it appears to the Minister that there is a defect in the general plans or arrangements of the Post Office for exercising any of its powers, he may, after consultation with it, give it directions of a general character for remedying the defect.
If at the end of this exercise the Post Office insists on refusing to listen to voices such as mine, I shall have to have to come back, knock on his door and ask him to exercise that power.
I should like to deal briefly with the specifics of the criteria. I know that two other hon. Members want to add their voices and to raise similar issues. That only proves that these are not isolated arguments which the House should disregard. These are important issues of principle to the communities which many of us represent.
Does the Minister accept that the proposal to close the south-east district office means that this would be the only head office with no counter service? Is that not ludicrous? Let us imagine that someone went to the head office of Lloyds bank in the City of London only to be told, "I am sorry, all we do here is paper transactions behind closed doors. There is no counter service." No one would regard that as a logical set-up. As with every head office, the south-east district office is the place where one catches the post last, because that is where the sorting is carried out. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that would be the only place where there was no counter service.
Before he says, "Ah, but", I am aware that when the south-west district office moved to Nine Elms some time ago, it did not take a counter service with it. However, there is a big difference, because as all hon. Members will

know, no people live near the Nine Elms district office. It is surrounded by open space and not much business. In no way is that example parallel.
Secondly, will the Minister confirm that only last year the south-east district office underwent a major refurbishment in both the sorting office and counter service at a cost of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of pounds? If the Minister cares to give the exact figure, the House would be delighted to know.
The south-east district office now has comfortable offices upstairs for the management. I have been in them. Will the result not be that only a year after this major refurbishment, the counter service is to go? How is that for efficiency and cost-effectiveness? At some point the Minister may care to look at some of the letters from local residents and businesses suggesting that that is a ludicrous way in which to proceed.
I have with me a letter from the Midland bank, 82 Newington Causeway, Elephant and Castle branch, to the manager of Post Office customer services. It is dated Christmas eve. It seems that the bank felt so strongly that even that was not an inappropriate date on which to make its views clear. It states:
Dear Mr. MacDonald,
I note your comments concerning the need to reduce costs but perhaps an intensified marketing effort will do that, in relative terms, for you? The office in question is, as you will be aware, adjacent to a newly refurbished sorting office and one would think that, if efficiency is being considered, such a situation could not be bettered. I am reluctant to pursue a point unnecessarily but experience of large organisations leads me to suspect that proper consideration from a cost effective view-point is not always given in such circumstances. Convenience from a geographical aspect is certainly no basis on which to assess the validity of a decision in heavily developed areas. I am pleased to note that no final decision has been made and hope that attention will be given to ensure that the service elsewhere is improved to compensate for any closures.
Yours sincerely,
M. J. Mayhew, Manager".
Local accountants who with the banks and others attended the chamber of commerce meeting were astonished to discover that only a few months after this major refubishment the office would not be used at all and would be closed. The only rational explanation is conspiratorial, that is, that the post office intended to do that and then to acquire the counter area for the sorting office. Will the Minister either deny that or say that he accepts that it would be folly to have made such a major investment and not to use it for the intended purpose?
Thirdly, the business in the post office is increasing. That is not surprising because the area is being developed. The Government gave the London Docklands Development Corporation the job of developing the docklands, and it is doing so. The decline in inner London continues, but the figures show that in north Southwark we have turned the corner. I hope that we have. Certainly, post office business increased by 10 per cent. last year and will probably increase by 17 per cent. this year. That is a funny sort of unprofitable business to close.
I shall now deal with the criterion of the sorts of users. There are many pensioners in Southwark. It is the borough in south-east London with the most pensioners as a proportion of the population. North Southwark has the most pensioners—20·7 per cent. of the population. It does not need much imagination to realise that pensioners find it increasingly difficult to go further afield for the variety of services that the Post Office provides.
People are writing in the following terms:


Dear Sir,
This is shocking news to me to read of the proposed closure of P.O. 239 Borough High Street. I am 94 years old and can only walk short distances—to walk any further would be a terrible burden to bear. As holder of 2 War Medals in World War 1, we did not fight our enemies just so that things like this could happen here. Please save No. 239. Yours truly,
A. J. Vinden.
For thousands of pensioners, going to the post office is bound up with their ability to remain fit and active. It is sometimes difficult, and it is made no easier if they must go further than they are physically able to go. To say that because an area of an inner city has post offices closer together than elsewhere and to discount the great disproportion of pensioners in the community relative to many other places is unfair and heartless.
I now turn to the difficulties that must be taken into account. The district postmaster knows of the inadequate and often slow bus services, the pavements and alleyways off Borough high street that are packed with prams, shopping, luggage, people who are blind, handicapped and disabled, and wheelchairs. One does not need much imagination to realise the volume of traffic there. The Post Office suggests that people use the underpasses. It is not advisable for people of 64, let alone 90, to use underpasses, especially in the winter and the wet for reasons which most of us appreciate.
I could argue the case for hours, but I shall not. It is important to use this opportunity both for this case and the many other cases about which hon. Members may not have the opportunity to make the same points.
A petition of the friends and members of the church of St. George the Martyr, Borough high street, states that 6,504 customers a week use the post office, 1,732 pensioners are paid there, 571 child benefit payments are made, and 1,081 unemployment and sick benefits are paid. It continues:
The alternative is to go to the Post Office at London Bridge. For three quarters of the year it means a long walk for the old, the sick, and the mothers with little children along the Borough High Street in the teeth of a bitter NE wind. Even to start upon this means crossing main roads at one of the most dangerous crossings in London. If it is suggested that people go by bus they would have a very dangerous crossing either going or coming back, and, in any case, the bus stops at London Bridge would not put them down anywhere near the Post Office. In any case the Post Office at London Bridge is always very busy.
If you suggest that friends should get the pension you must understand that the high proportion of old people means that this is too difficult to achieve. We should be glad to demonstrate to you our peculiar difficulties if you could spend a short time with us. Have you ever watched the old people struggling along through the crowds in the Borough High Street, on the uneven paving stones, having crossed through the thick streams of traffic, with their lorries and buses? Have you ever pushed a pram up and down the curbs of all the entrances which once led to the inn yards of times gone by? Or, because of going the other way, to the Elephant and Castle, have you ever gone in fear of being mugged? We ask you"—
this is the crucial point—
to consider the reality of our lives, rather than make your decisions according to theory".
Another consideration is that other post offices are nearby. The obvious remark is that nearby post offices are often busy already. I went on a little walkabout with the district manager one Friday. He told me that it would not be a busy day, because Friday was traditionally quiet. He told me that the average waiting time was 90 seconds; it

happened to be nine minutes. He was embarrassed. So he should have been, because it is not working as the Post Office imagines or pretends.
The last criterion that the Post Office asks us to consider is the development of the area. When we talk about rural post offices, we say that they are important to the communities. But they are no less important in urban areas. The area is being developed and we shall have 17,000 more people in the next 10 years. I suppose that in a few years' time the Post Office will say, "Now we need another office." It so happens that it owns the building in which this office is situated, so it will not save much by closing it. Would it not be better to keep up the present service, although it is inadequate?
The argument will come down, finally, to cost. Therefore, at the chamber of commerce meeting, which was attended by accountants and business people, we. asked, "What do you make at the post office in Borough high street? Do you make a loss or a profit?" The district postmaster and the regional director said, "We do not know. We do not work out whether we make a loss or a profit on all these offices." The Government tell us that the Post Office is supposed to be a business. Not many businesses would deserve to survive for long if they did not know whether they made a loss or a profit. The intelligent business people at that meeting could not believe their ears. No Government can countenance closing offices when the Post Office does not know whether it makes a loss or a profit.
If the Government investigated, what would they discover? First, the post office in Borough high street, like all others, is increasingly productive. There have been many redundancies agreed with the union since 1981 to make a considerably more productive office. Secondly, they would discover that this office makes a profit—probably a substantial one. Then their argument would be, "We cannot keep only the offices that make a profit. If we do, we must close all the offices that make a loss." That is one of those arguments that sounds as though the protagonists are determined to win every way round.
The Post Office is either a service, in which case the places that sometimes make a loss are supported by those which make a profit, or it is a business, in which case the Government should want offices to make a profit to support those which do not, or it is neither. In reality, it should be both, and it makes a profit. Last year, the counters made a profit of £12 million and the Post Office as a whole made a profit of more than £100 million. There can be no financial justification for saying that those offices should close.
Of course, the Post Office may say, as its final gasp, "We give in. There is a need for this office, so we shall close the Crown office and open a sub-post office across the road." If that is the thinking—I suspect that it might be—it concedes the validity of our argument. If there is a need for an office across the road, there is a need for an office at the present site. It will make no difference whether the office is situated across the road or whether it stays where it is, especially as it is making a profit where it is. There is no evidence that it will make a greater profit across the road.
If consultation is not a sham, the consultation that has been carried out should be considered. If ever there was a post office which, on any rational appraisal of the argument, should be saved, the head post office for southeast London passes the test.
It is not sufficient for the Government to say that there are still a good number of offices in south-east London and that Southwark has the best service of all. All those offices are busy and needed. Everyone uses them and wants them. Businesses are expanding and the area is developing—it is a densely populated, bustling part of what we all want to be a prosperous capital city.
We have the tradition of a postal service as a service to our people. I hope that the House is in no doubt that in my constituency, as elsewhere, we are determined that the Post Office will hear our arguments, will heed them and will keep those offices open.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has drawn attention to the problems associated with the closure of main post offices in his part of Southwark. In so doing, he highlights the repercussions and problems elsewhere in Southwark. He outlined the criteria for the closure of Crown and sub-post offices, and he put his finger on the weak spot—that the criteria may exist in a doctrinaire way, but they are not costed criteria. They do not take into account the profitability or potential profitability of the offices that may be closed. They seem to be concerned more with geographical criteria than with prosperity and profitability.
I want to draw attention to an area where those criteria have singularly failed. In the southerly part of Southwark, in Croxted road, a post office was run by a sub-postmaster who felt obliged to resign. The sub-post office was closed, which brought in its wake a terrible trail of tragedy for a number of people who relied on it for both their livelihood and their social contact. The position is heightened in sadness because there are two potential—and, I believe, already approved — sub-postmasters who are ready, willing and able to be appointed. However, representations at every level in the Post Office have failed to bring about any change of attitude towards that sub-post office, which was closed by an act of fate rather than a properly reasoned decision by the Post Office.
I want to touch upon those aspects of the closure that are not usually considered by the Post Office in looking at its criteria for deciding whether an office should close, or whether, having been closed, should not be re-opened. In this case, the office was situated on the Lambeth side of the borough boundary, but it was equally shared and used by my constituents and people living in Norwood. It fulfilled a very real social need for the many elderly people who drew their pensions and other benefits there, and for the parents of very young children. It fulfilled that personal social objective which has not been taken fully into account by the Post Office in setting its criteria.
That is an immediate and, perhaps, short-term problem. However, there is a long-term problem. The office was in a community of two dozen shops which, to a large extent, depend upon the existence of a post office. People drew their money at the office and spent it in the surrounding shops. It was a convenient shopping point for a number of people. The failure of the Post Office to supply that service means that those who drew their money from that office now have to go further afield, and therefore spend further afield.
During the past few months, two of the two dozen shops have closed and another three are threatened with closure because they cannot keep up the volume of business

without the sub-post office. More is involved than the profitability of that sub-post office. It represented a cornerstone, a keystone, a kingpin for that commercial community. If that is taken away, that commercial community will collapse.
The Post Office has suggested alternatives for those who normally used that sub-post office. As with other alternatives which, I suspect, have been proffered in other areas, impossible, or almost impossible, conditions of travel are involved. In this case, there is no direct public transport route. That means either that the elderly must change buses, with the attendant problems, or run the danger of being mugged or suffering in other ways as a result of having to carry money through the streets of south London.
The post office has been used by a neighbouring estate for the payment of rent to the boroughs. It would present an unfair and heavy burden on those who pay their rents by that means to have to take their money a mile or further to the next office, with all the danger involved.
For those reasons, which are well known, which have been highlighted by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and which are reflected in many other parts of south-east London, it seems that the criteria on which the Post Office has decided to close post offices, or to leave closed offices which have been closed, are not purely commercial and rational, but are doctrinaire. I urge the Minister to look seriously at the basis on which the Post Office is making decisions of this kind.
For the Croxted road post office we have tried to get the figures of profitability and potential. It is evident either that those responsible for making decisions are not prepared to disclose the figures because it would damage their case to disclose them, or, as is more likely, that they have no idea of the figures.
Being a commercial organisation, the Post Office must act in a commercial way. I submit that, from the ease to which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, has drawn attention, and the case of the post office in Croxted road to which I have referred, it is clear that the criteria have been employed in a way that is neither rational nor commercial.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Traditionally, Adjournment debates are occasions when hon. Members raise grievances. Tonight, we do not come to the Government as subject peoples craving the indulgence of a monarchical figure. The people we represent are the owners of the enterprise with which we are concerned and for which, for a temporary period, the Minister is indirectly responsible. He has transferred to that responsibility from other duties and he may yet be transferred to others. The Post Office, meanwhile, goes on and the needs of those who use it go on.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for raising this subject and for the support that was given by the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden). I am pleased to have this opportunity to join in the debate because there is widespread grievance throughout the country at the way people are being treated by those who run the nation's property.
The way in which they are running it is hurting elderly people and those who cannot walk without difficulty. Public transport is disappearing. It is hurting mothers with


young children as they move along crowded pavements with their charges. There is no rhyme or rational reason for a great deal of what is going on.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey is from docklands. I am pleased to say that half the area of docklands is in the London borough of Newham, all in my constituency. In the borough of Newham, five sub-post offices are closing. In or close to docklands, two are being closed, one at Boundary road and the other at Roman road, East Ham. In one part of docklands, meanwhile, we want a post office to be opened, but, despite the excellent case for it, the Post Office will not open one, or has not so far opened one. I shall return to that subject.
First, I wish to observe some curious features of this terrible affair which is breaking out throughout the country like a rash of measles. The Government have given the Post Office targets. I suggest that they are arbitrary and are not necessarily realistic. Some of my London colleagues amd I have had extensive correspondence with Sir Ronald Dearing, who I thank for the courtesy of listening to an hour and a half's argument, although it did not leave us much the wiser.
He said that one reason for the closure of post offices, which he hoped would result in the saving of £15 million to £20 million a year, was that more funds would be available for new investment and new business. He hopes to retain the business that he holds.
It is argued that the post offices must close, especially the two in docklands which I have mentioned. Sir Ronald has told me that there will be savings of about £8,000 at each of the five sub-offices that are to be closed. That implies that the savings will be made and that the same transactions will take place elsewhere. The savings will be marginal if the transactions are held, which is the Post Office's objective. The savings relative to turnover will be relatively small and, to some extent, problematic.
In his latest letter to me, Sir Ronald submits that he will not be able to say until the end of the exercise how much of the new investment will arise from savings. I should like to know whether the Government have required a notional degree of savings from the Post Office's own resources to be part of the new investment which the Post Office believes should be made. If that requirement has been made, the entire closure programme is specious and illogical.
In Newham there is an area of dockland known as Beckton, where a mini new town is arising. There will be up to 20,000 new people in the area and, we hope, an associated industrial area. The district centre is like a new town centre but on a rather smaller scale. There will be a number of facilities and there is a large one there already —an Asda superstore with space for parking 700 cars. It has over 30 checkouts. There is also a shopping mall and the Newham post office liaison committee has requested the Post Office to place at least a sub-post office in the mall and perhaps a Crown post office. There is a growing population and most of them are mortgage payers who can enjoy some optional expenditure.
The mall would have been an apt spot for new business but despite the opportunity, the Post Office has not opened a branch office as requested. Instead, it is closing two branch offices that are not far away. The one in Roman road, East Ham, serves an isolated area with a high proportion of pensioners, who will have to get to the

nearest sub-post office by walking up and down steps over the northern outfall sewer bank, which will be extremely difficult for many of them. I understand from the district postmaster that the Roman road sub-post office will be closed after the backlog of the Newcastle social security payments has been made up, as will the one in Boundary road in my constituency, which can present an equally good case for being kept open.
This pattern is probably repeated in every constituency in Britain with urban areas. I would have made this speech in any event, but over the weekend I was provided with information at short notice about a Crown post office in London. I have written to the hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) about the New Fetter lane Crown post office where many of my constituents, and no doubt the constituents of all London Members, might well do business.
The local branch of the Union of Communication Workers wrote to the freeholders of the site on which the post office is situated. It wrote:
The Post Office management locally have informed us from time to time that one of the reasons that New Fetter Lane post office had been selected for closure is that your company refuses to allow them a lease renewal.
The union and the company concerned have kindly allowed me to read the reply sent by a responsible person in that company. The letter stated:
So far as the particular is concerned, I should not normally wish to disclose to anyone else the detailed agreement between"—
the letter names the company concerned—
and the Post Office regarding Fetter Lane. However, I can tell you that the present lease does not expire until December 1986 and that there has not, so far, been any discussion about what should happen after that.
There may be some misunderstanding, but the point is that, in respect of most of these closures, there has been mysticism and distrust and lack of confidence in the Post Office administration which is widespread and typified by this correspondence.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman kindly mentioned that point to me earlier. Although it was not germane to my argument, I must tell the Minister that Merton district post office is in a similar position. That post office was told that London Transport, which owns the freehold, wanted the leasehold to revert to it in September 1983. When LRT was asked about the matter, it said that the post office could have the leasehold as long as it liked. I say that in support of the hon. Gentleman and I hope that the Minister will take heed and ascertain what is happening.

Mr. Spearing: I come to the crunch line—the name of the company, which it has kindly allowed me to reveal. It is no less than Mirror Group Newspapers. Perhaps that was not known to the Post Office, which has written leading articles on this matter. The letter from the company continued:
We shall continue to resist closure of Post Offices and we will be glad to hear from you of any developments which you think might help with the campaign.
Yours sincerely,
R. Maxwell.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey for his intervention. We have two cases where verbal or written information from the Post Office, although it may have been given in good faith by the functionaries, has turned out to be highly questionable, if not incorrect.
I put it to the Minister and through him to Sir Ronald Dearing, with whom I have had extensive correspondence, that this calls into question the basis of the closure of any sub-post office or Crown post office. If the Post Office wants to expand and to increase the confidence of business and individuals, this is not the way in which to go about it. The Minister should use his powers to ensure that the programme is stopped and that a total reassessment of the Post Office closure programme is started by the Government and pursued by the Post Office in pursuit of its duties to the public.

The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): I am grateful to the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden). We appreciate their concern. The Government have frequently stated their recognition of the important role that post offices play in our social and economic life. I referred to this on 23 January when the House had a full debate on post office closures. I referred to the recognition by this Government, like our predecessors, that the Post Office is a commercial organisation and that it is not only right but essential that it should look to ways to improve efficiency. Unless the Post Office does so, the future of the entire network will be imperilled and its ability to play any role in the life of the country will be in doubt.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey attended at least part of the debate on 23 January, and I imagine that little of what I have to say to him will be news. In particular, it should come as no surprise to him that I have no intention of intervening in the Post Office's proposals to close the two post offices to which he has referred. Not only would it be wholly wrong for me to seek to intervene but I have no power to do so. It would be inappropriate for me to comment in detail on the particular circumstances of these decisions.
The hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey, for Newham, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich will appreciate that what they have said will be closely read and studied by the chairman of the Post Office and the board member responsible for counter services. To that extent, nothing that hon. Members have said tonight has been wasted, but they will appreciate that their representations must be properly addressed to that quarter and not to me.
I appreciate that no post office closure is popular. It will not surprise hon. Members to know that I am no exception, as I have a closure in my constituency. I well know from my constituency mail bag what people think about such matters. It is also understandable that the constituents of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey who currently use those two post offices, like people elsewhere in the country who use post offices which face closure, consider that theirs are special cases. It is for the Post Office and not the Government to consider each case and to make decisions.
It should be clearly understood that the Post Office is responsible for running the counters network and decisions about individual post offices are operational ones for it and not for the Government. That is in accordance with the clear distinction, of which I am sure all hon. Members are aware, between the respective roles of the Government and the Post Office Board. That goes back to the

establishment in 1969 of the Post Office as a public corporation with its board. It has been the policy of successive Governments, embodied in the relevant legislation, that decisions about the day-to-day management of the business are the responsibility of the board. The Government's role is confined to broad issues of general policy and matters of overall financial control.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey referred to section 11 of the Post Office Act 1969, which relates to directions of a general character for remedying a defect in the general plan or arrangements of the Post Office for exercising its powers. A closure decision, in our view, cannot be regarded as a general plan or arrangement under any definition or construction of those words. That is why—I said this on 23 January—we do not believe that we have the powers, nor do we seek them, to intervene is such detailed matters.
The Government's interest and responsibilities relate to the overall network, and we consider the Post Office's proposals for the urban network in that context.
It might be helpful if I set the Post Office's proposals for reducing the size of the urban counters network and the Government's role and reaction in regard to those proposals in their proper context. The network of post offices is the largest retail chain in the country. In March last year it consisted of 20,499 sub-post offices and 1,559 Crown offices. The current programme to reduce the size of the urban network by up to 5 per cent. will mean a network at the end of the 1986–87 financial year of about 19,500 sub-post offices and 1,490 Crown offices. The reduction is hardly draconian, by anyone's standards.
Although the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey made the acceptable debating point that a local closure is a 100 per cent. closure, that is on the assumption that there is no alternative. I am sure that he accepts that there are eight alternative offices within a mile of the Bermondsey branch office and nine alternative offices within a mile of the 239 Borough high street post office. I am not saying that they are equally convenient for all his constituents. Of course they are not. I hope that he will accept that it is not possible to say that it is a 100 per cent. closure and that there is no alternative post office within a mile when he considers the numbers that I have mentioned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich was somewhat dismissive about costing and profitability. In my speech on 23 January on the subject of post office closures I said that when the Post Office carried out its major review of counters in 1983 it revealed
2,000 urban offices in excess of the one-mile criterion
of which my hon. Friends will be aware
and 2,000 urban post offices that are unprofitable, as are about three quarters of the 11,000 rural post offices."—[Official Report, 23 January 1985; Vol. 71, c. 998.]
These have been deliberately exempted from any part of the closure programme.
I have emphasised profitability. For the Post Office to know what is unprofitable it has, by definition, to be aware of what is profitable and unprofitable. I hope that no hon. Member is suggesting that the Post Office does not have the ability to make calculations of that kind, because most certainly it does.
By its nature, the counters business is an operation that has high fixed costs and the economics of running it depends heavily upon the volume of business which is undertaken. I have stressed that the Post Office is a


commercial organisation, and it is under no illusions that it is owed a living. It recognises that there are effective competitive alternatives for many of the services available in the post offices and is well aware that if the counters network is to retain existing business and win new business it must provide an efficient and cost-effective service at prices which customers are prepared to pay. The majority of the business undertaken at counters is work for Government Departments, public corporations and local authorities. They use the network because it provides a cost-effective way of meeting their requirements. It would be quite wrong to expect these agency customers to use the counters network irrespective of their costs which are, of course, borne by their customers, whether they are taxpayers or ratepayers.
Not only is it sensible, in purely business terms, for the Post Office to look towards improving its efficiency; it is also under a clear statutory duty to do so. Its statutory duty also requires it to have regard to the social needs of the United Kingdom. I should stress that the Post Office takes this part of its duty just as seriously as the requirement to have regard to efficiency and economy.
Earlier today I had the pleasure of flying over the constituency of the hon. Member for Newham, South. Also I impinged slightly on the air space of the constituency of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey while I was looking at the excellent and impressive London docklands development. Later I drove past the Asda development to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Therefore I can confirm what he said about its existence. It appears to be an extremely significant development and I am sure that the words he has put on the record tonight will be closely scrutinised by Sir Ronald Dearing and his colleagues on the Post Office Board. If there is to be a new development, as certainly appeared to be the case from the air, there will certainly be the potential for new customers, and the Post Office is always interested in new customers.
Since 1945 the Post Office has had the criterion of providing post offices in town areas at intervals of no less than a mile. This is not, and was never intended to be, a precise and inflexible standard. It represents what the Post Office has regarded as a reasonable balance between the service its customers would like and the costs involved. The Post Office has not applied the criterion rigidly but over the years has made decisions about particular post offices in the light of local circumstances. Up to the late 1960s the network grew, due to new housing development, population growth and growth in business. However, changes in the distribution of population were not fully reflected in the provision of post offices and a review which the Post Office undertook in 1983 revealed an excess of about 2,000 offices against the criterion. It is worth while, particularly in a debate that has dwelt upon the constituencies that have been referred to this evening, for the House to bear in mind that the population of inner London has declined by nearly 30 per cent. over the last 20 years.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I accept what the Minister said about his powers, but if there was an argument that the interpretation and use of the various criteria—not just the one mile criterion, but all the others — were not being properly carried out by the Post Office, surely he

will accept that he would have a power to review the consultation and other criteria as applied, because otherwise there is no court of appeal. There is only the Minister. He is the only person to whom one can turn if the Post Office does anything wrong. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that because, on some of those issues, clearly the general does not apply to the particular cases that he has heard about this evening.

Mr. Pattie: I shall refer in a moment to consultation, because it is an important point. The Government feel that there is a duty to intervene only if there is some evidence of what I would describe as a widespread abuse by the Post Office of its statutory powers, and if it was flouting the consultation procedures, and not making any attempt to provide a proper service or take account of its statutory requirements. Only in such a situation would the Government intervene. The situation would then have developed beyond a mere local difficulty, and become general and widespread.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am conscious of the time, but he touched on an important point that I raised, and to which he has not yet referred in detail. If the example that I gave—the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) gave another—is shown to be correct, would it not be within the criteria that he has just outlined, in that, as a prima facie case, incorrect, and knowingly incorrect, information has been given by the Post Office in the course of that consultation?

Mr. Pattie: I do not think that it would be. I have said —not, I hope, in an ex cathedra way—that in my view the Post Office, in order to cause the Government to feel that they should invoke their general powers, would have to give substantial, widespread and nationwide prima facie evidence that it was abusing the criteria under which it operates.
After the review in 1983, the Post Office informed the Government about the outcome of the review and the proposals that it had framed to reduce the number of post offices in urban areas. Our concern was to ensure that the proposals did not prejudice our commitment to the maintenance of a network sufficiently adequate to enable the Post Office to fulfil its statutory duty with regard to efficiency and economic and social needs. The Post Office's proposals included its intention to consult the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, the Post Office trade unions and the Post Office Users National Council. It also confirmed that individual closure proposals would be subject to the existing code of procedure agreed with POUNC in 1981 and revised in January 1984 to include Crown offices, which provides for consultation with local interests before final decisions are made to close individual offices. We were satisfied with the overall balance that the Post Office was seeking to strike between the needs of those whom it serves and the need for reasonable economy and efficiency, and that the proposals were not inconsistent with its statutory duty. However, that is the extent of our involvement, as I have said.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey talked about violent opposition and so on. He is making the assumption that the consultation process is somehow concluded simply because he is apparently aware of some decision that is on the desk of perhaps the director of the London region. It is my understanding that the decisions


that he is drawing to the attention of the House have not yet been finally taken. The hon. Gentleman might regard this Adjournment debate as an adjunct to the consultation process. I have evidence that in over 10 per cent. of the cases that the Post Office has had before it on the closure programme, the Post Office has withdrawn the proposals. I do not think that any reasonable person who is minded to take an objective view could say that that shows, as some people have said — I know that the hon. Gentleman has not said this — that the consultation process is some sort of charade. That remark was made —it is a rather unworthy remark—in the debate on 23 January. I know that the Post Office takes the consultation process seriously. It is not blinkered in any way in its approach, nor does it regard any of its proposals as being what I would describe as a foregone conclusion. I repeat, however, that today's proceedings will be closely studied by Sir Ronald Dearing and the Post Office Board.
I have read the correspondence between the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and various senior officials, including a letter from the London regional director who, I understand, has since retired. In a letter dated 21 February Mr. A. G. Brown stated:
I am, of course, delighted to accede to your request for a meeting and I must agree with you that it would make more sense to discuss the matter with both of you at once.
I was therefore surprised to learn that that meeting with the hon. Gentleman and his colleague had not taken place.

Mr. Simon Hughes: No criticism of Mr. Brown was implied. He did not leave in any sense under a cloud. He has been replaced fairly quickly and I understand that his undertaking is to be honoured by his successor. Any delay is merely a result of a changeover at that level of management and is no one's fault. My colleague and I look forward to meeting the new regional director.

Mr. Pattie: I merely mention the matter as examination of the correspondence suggested that the ball might he in the hon. Gentleman's court.
As I explained in the debate on 23 January, in undertaking the review of the urban counters network and in framing the subsequent proposals to reduce the size of the network, the Post Office's aim is to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the network. The Post Office is well aware that closures are not popular but believes that the exercise is essential to secure the future of the network, for the long-term benefit of the community. The Post Office has the Government's full support in those efforts.

England-Scotland Football Match

Mr. John Maxton: I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss a matter that has arisen since this week's Adjournment debates were selected — the transfer of the England-Scotland match on 25 May from Wembley in London to Hampden park in my constituency in Glasgow.
The decision was taken by the Football Association on 29 March. The reason given was that the Government had made it clear that they did not wish the game to take place in London on a bank holiday weekend because, partly as there would be more crowds and partly due to insufficient policing, they felt that disorder could easily occur both at the stadium and in the streets of London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment with responsibility for sport wrote in a letter:
The Government is extremely concerned that the current timing of this fixture increases the risk of disorder".
I appreciate that in expressing that view the Government did not say that they wished the game to be transferred to Hampden park. They wished the game to take place midweek, as it did two years ago, rather than on a Saturday especially on a bank holiday weekend.
The Government have made it clear both in meetings with Members of Parliament and publicly to the press that they do not regard themselves as in any way responsible for the implications and results of the decision taken by the Football Association, but I disagree. First, we must ask ourselves a simple question. Would the transfer have taken place if the Minister with responsibility for sport had said nothing or if the Prime Minister had not expressed great concern about the hooliganism that had occurred at the Millwall-Luton match a few days earlier? The answer to that question is no. The transfer would not have taken place. The FA and the Scottish Football Association, of their own violition, would not have transferred the game to Hampden park. The transfer was made under Government pressure. It was because the Government were frightened about football hooliganism that the FA took that decision.
The Government may say that the FA's solution was not what they wanted. If the Government had not wished the game to be played on a holiday weekend, why did they not protest further and make it clear that if it was wrong to play such a game at Wembley on a bank holiday weekend, or indeed any weekend, because of possible crowd disturbance—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert]

Mr. Maxton: If it was right that the game should not be played at Wembley on a holiday weekend, and if Ministers had therefore asked that it should be played in the middle of a week, why did they make no protest? Why did they make no effort to tell the FA or the SFA that if it was wrong to play the game at Wembley on a holiday weekend, it would be equally wrong to play it at Hampden?
That weekend is a holiday weekend in Scotland as well as in England. If there is a risk of violence, it will now he my constituents and the constituents of other Glasgow Members, rather than the citizens of London. who will he


put at risk. If there is a risk, the Minister should have protested against the playing of the match at Hampden at the weekend, just as he protested against its being played in London.
Many people in Scotland feel that the real reason for the change was that any disturbance will now appear to have been caused by hooligan Scots. A fortnight before the announcement, during discussions after the MillwallLuton match, I heard a well-known football correspondent say on the radio that the England-Scotland match would take place because it was profitable, even if that meant that the hooligan tartan hordes would be let loose on the streets of London.
The record of Scottish football fans has improved considerably. Scottish fans behave considerably better abroad than English travelling fans, whose behaviour abroad or at away games is far worse than their behaviour at Wembley. If there is an insult here, it is an insult to Scottish football fans. Over the past few years the amount of hooliganism in Scotland has decreased. I attended the 1983–84 league cup final between Rangers and Celtic. The match took place on a Sunday afternoon—I agree that that made a difference—but I took my sons, aged 9 and 11 years to that game, and there was no trouble whatsoever in a game that is traditionally associated with violence.
Scottish fans who travelled to Spain for the world cup were congratulated by the Spanish authorities and police on their behaviour. More recently, when Scotland played in the world cup qualifying games in Spain, the Scottish fans were again congratulated by the Spanish authorities on their behaviour.
I read in the press this morning that last weekend there had been many stabbings, scenes of violence and arrest at two semi-finals in England, but that the police had again congratulated Scottish fans at those two semi-finals on their behaviour.
In recent years, awareness of violence at Scottish football matches has increased and the problem has been tackled. As Minister responsible for sport in Scotland, Frank McElhone did football in Scotland a tremendous service when he produced his report. The Minister for Sport nods his head. That is fine, but the report is now eight years old. What have the English authorities done about it? I accept that the Government incorporated part of the report in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, which bans the carriage of drink into almost every football ground in Scotland bars drunks and forbids drink on football supporters' coaches and trains.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that it might be because the Scottish Football Association has been so successful in eliminating violence from grounds that the Government wanted to switch the match to Scotland because Scotland could be trusted whereas England could not?

Mr. Maxton: I take my hon. Friend's point. Perhaps Scotland is suffering from its own success. That seems a bit rough on my constituents. I suspect that it will be some of the English fans who cause the problem.
The law bans more than alcoholic drinks. Any container that can be interpreted as a missile is forbidden from a ground—it might be a Coke can, a lemonade bottle or even a Thermos flask. The law seems to have reduced the

violence. Dunfermline college of further education recently did a study which showed that all-seat stadiums produce less violence.
It might be argued that my constituents are used to football crowds going through, but they plan ahead and know when the games will take place. This game has been sprung on them. Organisations and clubs have made arrangements for that day and will have them disrupted. It will not be possible to get near bowling greens and tennis courts because cars and coaches will be parked on side streets all around the ground. Even if there is no trouble there will be disruption.
We should also consider the cost incurred by those who had arranged to travel to Wembley. Many have already booked coaches, hotels on the way and hotels in London. A range of organisations are affected. They might have paid deposits for the full fee, but the Government are making no effort to ensure that they are compensated.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a cost to the public purse in the form of policing arangements and others to accommodate the fans?

Mr. Maxton: That is an important point which the Government have not answered. I assume that they will give Strathclyde region police force extra funding. Perhaps they would like to subvent Department of the Environment money to do that. The loss that worries me is that of fans. Football fans come from the poorer quarter of the community and some of them will have saved for two years to make the journey to London. They are now to lose money.
British Rail and ABTA should be congratulated, because they have been prepared to make an effort to ensure that some repayment is made. However, many supporters have not booked through travel agents which are members of ABTA. Many people have made their own arrangements, such as travelling with one-man operation coach companies. Such companies are not in a position to compensate and will not do so.
Many other people have booked into hotels which do not belong to the major chains. Here again, these small London hotels will be unable to make refunds. Therefore, many people will lose money—individuals, small travel agencies and even some of the larger ones. Indeed, some of the smaller travel agencies say that they could be forced out of business as a result.
The minimum which the Governmnt should do is to call a meeting of all the organisations concerned to ensure that compensation is properly co-ordinated, In my view, they should make some funds available for compensation, because they are responsible. Whether this decision was inadvertent is irrelevant. The Government created the situation by putting a lot of pressure on the Football Association to transfer the game. Whether the game should be played at Hampden or at another venue is also irrelevant. This situation would not have occurred but for Government intervention.

Sir Hector Monro: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that this ought to be the most important annual fixture between two international sides? Had the Scottish and English Football Associations been asked in January to consider changing to another weekend, would


they not have been well advised to think seriously about doing it then so that they could have given plenty of notice about an alternative venue?

Mr. Maxton: I know that the English association was told, but I do not think that the Scottish Football Association was made aware of this possible change. However, to some extent the football authorities bear some responsibility, because to saythe least they have been criminally stupid.
There is, however, a case for Government compensation, because the Government created the problem. It was they who put on the pressure after the deplorable scenes at the Luton-Millwall match. In the longer term, the Government must clarify the future of the England-Scotland match at Wembley. Following our meeting with the Minister responsible for sport, the press thought he made it clear that never again would the England-Scotland match take place at Wembley on a Saturday. We should be told tonight whether or not that is true, If it is, it is an even greater insult to the Scottish fans.
In effect the Minister is saying, "We will not transfer the cup final or the rugby league final from a Saturday. the only game that we will insist is played mid-week is the England-Scotland match." The implication is that the scottish fans are causing the problem, yet we saw the trouble that was caused at the two FA cup semi-finals in England, which presumably will occur at the final to be played at Wembley on a Saturday. Therefore, the Government must think seriously about the implications of this decision.
I hope that they will now introduce legislation along the lines of the McElhone report, not the half-hearted measures which they are at present proposing, which suggest that drink will be banned only at grounds where trouble is caused. All football grounds should be told to ban drink. Such a ban should even include Twickenham and Murrayfield. There must be fairness which is apparent to all, and if a ban applies only to some grounds it will be unjust and unfair.
Funds must be made available to ensure that football recovers and that football grounds become social centres. That was the other half of the McElhone report which was never put into effect. It should be implemented now so that football grounds again become the social centres which large numbers of people can attend. The Government are responsible, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) for leaving me a few minutes, and to the Minister for agreeing that I should contribute to the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his usual diligence in seeing the opportunity for a second Adjournment debate, and on choosing an important subject. Although the terraces in this arena may be empty tonight, I assure all those who are present that the terraces in Scotland are livid at the way in which the Government have acted in such a ham-handed fashion and bungled the issue of the Scotland-England football international.
For an ex-president of the Scottish rugby union to intervene and defend the decision to transfer the game at the last minute tempts me to ask what might have happened if it had been the Calcutta cup match—but

then, it would not have happened with rugby. The Government have a heavy responsibility to bear. The intervention of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) was highly inaccurate because the Scottish Football Association did not receive a letter from the Government on 10 January. Only the English Football Association received it. The Government are responsible for bungling the matter and casting a slur on the good name and hard-earned good reputation of Scottish football supporters.
I give a hearty welcome to all the England supporters who will come to Hampden on 25 May and to the Prime Minister if she wishes to come. But the most dangerous event in Scotland in May will be the Tory party conference at Perth. All the English supporters who come to Hampden will see how football supporters should behave. The incident that triggered off this issue was the violence at the Luton-Millwall match. The English Football Association dispensed a punishment of a £7,000 fine on Millwall for which the chairman had to write a cheque there and then, and told Luton Town to build a fence around its stadium, which costs £30,000. The total fine, therefore, was £37,000. The consequences have been more far-reaching.
The Government's intervention has produced a shambles. It was caused by the Prime Minister meddling in something that she should have left well alone. [would not be averse to her staying in the far east, the middle east or whatever eastern state she wishes to visit until the international is over. She should have kept out of the matter. However, as soon as she saw an opportunity to wage yet another war she could not possibly resist it. This time the war was about the Scotland-England football international.
The Minister will say that the Government did not insist that the venue of the game be changed. However, in a year when the EFA and SFA are involved in the World Cup qualifying matches, and at a time when both English and Scottish cup finals are taking place and when senior clubs from England, which provide many of the internationalists who will play in the Scotland-England match, are involved in European cup finals, to suggest that they could have found another date was tantamount to suggesting that the game be cancelled completely. The Minister with responsibility for sport was primarily responsible for this. I do not believe that the Scottish Office was consulted. The first that it knew about it was on Friday when the announcement was made. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand the confusion and congestion of dates at this time in the football season, he is not fit to be Minister with responsibility for sport.
That sums up this whole sorry state of affairs. By universal agreement the Minister responsible for sport must resign to atone for his fumbling incompetence. I hope that when the Minister replies he will make it abundantly clear that this is not a slur on Scottish football supporters who have rightly earned a high reputation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): First, may I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) On his speed and his knowledge of procedure in obtaining this second Adjournment debate. It seems to be a characteristic of Scottish Labour Whips, because the last time that I


answered an Adjournment debate in similar circumstances, it was initiated by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg).
The facts about the match were set out in Hansard by my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport in a written answer on 2 April, but I welcome the opportunity to set out the position more fully because it has been misinterpreted. Tonight, not so much the hon. Member for Cathcart, but certainly the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), misunderstood the position in several important aspects. The first point is that we should look back to 1983 when the England-Scotland match was switched from bank holiday Saturday following representations from British Rail, the police and the Government. Therefore, this year, my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport wrote to the Football Association, not soon after the troubles at the LutonMillwall match, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said, as long ago as 10 January.

Mr. Ewing: But not to the Scottish Football Association.

Mr. Stewart: The Football Association was responsible for the match, because it was originally scheduled for England. My hon. Friend wrote to express the concern of the Government and of the travel authorities about the match going ahead on bank holiday Saturday, and recommended that it be switched to another date. The Government believed that to hold the match on bank holiday Saturday would significantly increase the risk of disorder. Labour Members rightly referred to the serious problems that resulted recently from the behaviour of a minority of English football fans.
As the hon. Member for Cathcart said, the football associations decided to switch the match to Hampden. The Government were not consulted about that decision, although they were informed the day before.
The hon. Members for Cathcart and for Falkirk, East talked about the belief in some quarters that this was a slur on Scottish football fans, and I wish to nail that allegation now. I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said in a statement:
I am incensed by suggestions that the decision to stage this year's England v Scotland football match in Hampden Park is the result of fears of disorder caused by Scottish supporters. Nothing could be further from the truth. In recent years we have seen Scots football fans proving they are capable of supporting their team without causing trouble. One only has to look at recent crowd troubles in England to see the contrast.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made the fair point—I wish to underline the fact—that the police are content for the match to go ahead at Hampden, which is a tribute to Scottish football fans.
It is true, as the hon. Member for Cathcart said, that the authorities in Seville were impressed by the conduct of Scottish supporters during the 1982 World Cup finals, and at the recent World Cup qualifying match in Spain. The hon. Gentleman was right to point out the improved behaviour of Scottish football fans since the Government implemented the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, following the excellent report from the late Frank McElhone. The football authorities and the police believe that the Act has had a major beneficial

effect. Of course, it is not the whole story, and measures such as the closed circuit television system that I inspected recently are also important.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I apologies to the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot give way as I have very little time left and I must answer a number of specific points
The hon. Member asked about compensation. The decision to transfer the game was not at the request of the Government. However, our view could hardly have been a surprise to the Football Association, because it had received my hon. Friend's letter in January. I wish to join the hon. Gentleman in paying a tribute to British Rail, the Association of British Travel Agents and British Airways for their specific announcements about refund measures. I hope very much that others who hold deposits from Scottish supporters will respond in a like manner. However, there can be no question of Government compensation, as I made clear when the hon. Members for Cathcart and for Falkirk, East came to the Scottish Office to discuss the matter.
The hon. Member for Cathcart asked why it was all right to go ahead on a bank holiday weekend in Glasgow. There is no history of serious disruption on bank holiday Saturdays in Glasgow, and I do not believe that there is any reason to think that there will be serious disruption this time. Of course I regret the inconvenience to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. However, the decision was announced on 29 March, so it is not fair to say that no notice was given. There has been a reasonable period of notice for the organisations to which the hon. Gentleman referred to try to change their plans.
On police costs, I can confirm that policing arrangements for the match will be as usual. Those costs incurred inside the ground will be recoverable from the organisers of the match, while the responsibility of the police for public order outside the ground will be as usual. Although I wish to make other points, I am prepared to give way to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, who tried to intervene earlier.

Mr. Tony Banks: I wished only to ask whether the Minister was aware of any discussions between the Department of the Environment, the Home Office and the Scottish Football Association. It is clear that the English Football Association was consulted by someone, but the Scottish Football Association was not.

Mr. Stewart: I can confirm that, following the letter from my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport on 10 January, there were discussions between my hon. Friend and the Football Association on this and other matters. I can also confirm that the Scottish Office was kept informed throughout by my hon. Friend.
Hon. Members have asked about future Wembley internationals, and I wish to make the position absolutely clear. The Government believe that it is a common-sense precaution to avoid the England-Scotland match being held on a bank holiday Saturday. That means that the match can be held either mid-week or on any other appropriate Saturday. That is a perfectly reasonable position. I hope that in future years the Football Association will be very meticulous about its consultations with travel authorities and the police in deciding on the dates.
This debate has been useful in putting the true position on the record and in correcting some of the misapprehensions of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East, especially on the timing—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half past-Ten o'clock.